History | Log In     View a printable version of the current page.  
Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: CASTOR-922
Type: Improvement Improvement
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Minor Minor
Assignee: Werner Guttmann
Reporter: Martin Fuchs
Votes: 0
Watchers: 0

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.

JDO DataSource configuration using a Properties collection

Created: 06/Nov/04 03:48 AM   Updated: 19/Apr/05 10:52 AM
Component/s: JDO
Affects Version/s:
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

File Attachments: 1. Text File castor-1785.patch (2 kb)
2. Text File castor-JdoConf-UnitTest.patch (7 kb)

Operating System: All
Platform: PC

Bugzilla Id: 1785

 Description  « Hide
The attached patch allows to configure JDO using a JDBC DataSource by providing
the configuration parameters using a Properties collection.

 All   Comments   Work Log   Change History      Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Martin Fuchs - 06/Nov/04 03:55 AM
Created an attachment (id=764)
proposed patch

The idea is to allow configuration in a similary way like with JDBC 3.0.

Werner Guttmann - 10/Nov/04 02:29 PM
Martin, can I please ask you to amend the CTF test case as well (in case there
is one already).

Martin Fuchs - 11/Nov/04 02:37 PM
Created an attachment (id=766)
JUnit tests for JdoConfFactory

Well, this is a bit difficult. The JDO-CTF internally configures the database
connection, so I can't use it to test JdoConfFactory.
But I can provide you with JUnit test cases in this patch file. The test class
is configured to use an Oracle Database, but can be change without problems to
use other drivers. (see the string constants at the top)

Werner Guttmann - 12/Nov/04 12:53 AM
No problem, Martin, as you can add 'independent' JUnit test cases to src/tests,
i.e. test cases that are not part of the test suite. There's already some at

Werner Guttmann - 29/Nov/04 03:36 AM
Patch (code only) applied as provided. Martin, I decided not to include the test
case as it stands, for the reasons described above. And I didn't want to include
it as a simple JUnit test case either, as this would imply creating new config
files, which I don't think is ideal. Iow, can we please create a new bug report
for just the test case ?

Werner Guttmann - 29/Nov/04 03:37 AM
Well, well .. setting the bug state to 'FIXED' ... .