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 16:38:03 GMT

>> 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.
>ok. So a JDO2.1 impl has to understand both "persistence.xml" 
>(JPA format) and 
>this "jdo.xml" ? No problem if that is the case but just want 
>to understand 
>what we're specifying here since not everyone was on this conf call.
Yes, this is correct.  I guess since JPA, which uses the base namespace
"javax.persistence" and calls the file "persistence.xml", then we should
probably call JDO bootstrap file "jdo.xml".  Done.

>> >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
>Yes. See a mail by Erik to the lists on 19/01/2007 called 
>"Proposal for 
>Service Discovery". JDOHelper would then have the job of 
>finding all services 
>files of this name ("javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactory"), 
>and from the 
>contents finding the relevant PMF to instantiate for a 
>particular PMF name.
>Since this appears to be an extension to JDO and not the 
>simple mapping across 
>of terminology JDO-JPA (being able to read a 
>"persistence.xml"), I'd ask are 
>we just confusing users by having "persistenceUnitName" and 
>for when a JDO impl reads a "persistence.xml", yet here we 
>also have a PMF 
>name (which is the same as a persistence-unit name) for when 
>we use this 
This was brought up on the conference call.  A "persistence unit" is the
same thing as a "named PMF".  We decided that we won't use the term
"named PMF" in the specification -- we'll just go with "persistence
unit".  There will be a JPA flavor (already specified) and a
corresponding JDO flavor (adding a name to a PMF, the getName() method).

As far as transaction type, I think they're the same.  Craig, can you
please comment on transaction type?


View raw message