db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthew Adams" <matthew.ad...@xcalia.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Named PMF proposal (JDOHelper enhancements)
Date Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:05:45 GMT
>1. Why call this file javax.jdo.xml ?, why not jdo.xml ?, or 
>even why not 
>persistence.xml ?
>
Call it what you want -- I only proposed these names.  I wouldn't call
it persistence.xml, as the contents are not the same as the
JPA-specified content.  If the persistence.xml is found, its contents
are of course interpretable by the JDO implementation according to our
JPA alignment verbage defined in JDO 2.1.

>2. Why not just use same definition of "persistence.xml" from 
>aforementioned 
>JPA spec ?
> When JDO2.1 has annotations not everything is 
>always defined in a 
>jdo(/orm/jdoquery) file, so would be nice to have the ability 
>to specify 
>classes, or jars.
>
Because it's not the same as the persistence.xml.  If we're missing the
ability to specify classes or jars, let's add it!

>3. We could certainly extend the "persistence.xml" concept to 
>add on the 
>listeners, etc as proposed.
>
Cool, but I'd still like to keep a JDO affinity
("InstanceLifecycleListeners") plus support for the JPA concepts
according to our intended alignment.

>4. Why do we need "persistence-manager-factory" class="..." ? 
> 
Basically, for backward similarity only, not necessarily backward
compatibility.  It was only a suggestion as well, since we could just go
with a <property name="javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactoryClass"
value="..."/> element.  It's just that this property is almost always
present, so I thought a convenient shortcut would be nice.

>We could use the 
>same boot idea as JPA and have a META-INF/services/javax.jdo.XXX file 
>defining the PMF(s) available, and it takes the one that 
>claims it supports 
>the required "persistence-unit" (or PMF)
>
I like this suggestion!  I assume the following would be true -- please
correct where I've got it wrong.

* The name of this file is
"META-INF/services/javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactory"
	* This is a text file
	* The contents of the file would be the name of the provider's
implementation class of javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactory
* There is a file with the same name as the contents of the file
"META-INF/services/javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactory"
	* The contents of this file are the same as the proposed content
of javax.jdo.xml (or jdo.xml, or ...) containing the named PMFs.

Thoughts?

-matthew

Mime
View raw message