|
Home > Archive > Apache JDO Project > September 2007 > Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Sep 28 , 9 am PDT
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Sep 28 , 9 am PDT
|
|
| Craig L Russell 2007-09-28, 1:11 pm |
| | |
| Ilan Kirsh 2007-09-29, 1:11 pm |
| Hi Craig,
> 2. Test challenges. Some challenges have been filed by Ilan. Most
> have been fixed in 2.1 maintenance (trunk) and one of them is
> unresolved but can be fixed in the challenge resolution branch 2.0.1
> interim to a final fix in 2.1 maintenance.
>
> Clarification: The 2.1 maintenance work is being done on the trunk.
> We created a 2.0.1 branch that has no API changes from 2.0 but has
> fixes for the tck where a specification clarification or API change
> would be needed to pass the tck. A compliant JDO 2.0 implementation
> should be able to pass the latest tck test in the 2.0.1 branch.
I am not sure I understand this. Currently it is impossible for a compliant
JDO implementation to pass the latest tck tests in the 2.0.1 branch.
For instance, look at:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-529
As you explained very well in a comment to this issue on 16 Sep 2007,
an implementation should return 4 result objects rather than 3.
I suggest adding these 5 tests to the exclude list of branch 2.0.1.
Otherwise, until the release of JDO 2.1 no implementation can be
JDO compliance (unfortunately including the reference implementation),
because you can only pass the tests by violating the specification.
Regards, Ilan
| |
| Craig L Russell 2007-09-29, 1:11 pm |
| | |
| Ilan Kirsh 2007-09-29, 1:11 pm |
| Hi Craig,
Thank you for the clarification and the support.
I was hoping it is just a misunderstanding.
Of course, patch is better than exclude (if time permits).
I am looking forward to the fixed 2.0.1 branch.
Regards, Ilan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig L Russell" <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>
Cc: <jdo-dev@db.apache.org>; <jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Sep 28 , 9 am PDT
> Hi Ilan,
>
> I was afraid I didn't spend quite enough time on this writeup to be
> completely clear.
>
> The intent is to update the 2.0.1 branch such that a compliant
> implementation can pass the tck with this branch. This means that
> tests that are in violation of the 2.0 specification should either be
> patched to avoid the violation or be excluded. As you have correctly
> pointed out, several issues remain in the 2.0.1 branch and we'd like
> to fix this branch.
>
> Where it is not desirable to exclude the incorrect test, it needs to
> be patched. That's the approach we are trying to take, to avoid
> excluding tests. So for your example for JDO-529, the update needs to
> be merged from the 2.1 trunk to the 2.0.1 test case challenge branch.
> That's the action item that Michelle took: to review the errors and
> merge the fixes to the branch.
>
> Thanks for working with us on this.
>
> Craig
>
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
|
|
|
|
|