openejb-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thiago Veronezi <>
Subject Re: OpenEJB and Database Views
Date Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:11:36 GMT
You can try it by changing the JPA implementation from openjpa to
I think jboss uses hibernate as default, so I believe you can get the
same behavior by using it too.

<!-- pom.xml -->
<dependency> <groupId>org.hibernate</groupId>
<version>3.6.0.Final</version> </dependency> <dependency>
<artifactId>hibernate-validator</artifactId> <version>4.1.0.Final</version>

<!-- persistence.xml -->
<persistence xmlns=""

<persistence-unit name="embeddedPU">

<!-- OPENJPA -->
<!-- property name="openjpa.jdbc.SynchronizeMappings"
value="buildSchema(ForeignKeys=true)"/ -->
<!-- property name="openjpa.Log" value="SQL=TRACE"/ -->

<!-- HIBERNATE -->
<property name="hibernate.dialect"
<property name="" value="update"/>
<property name="hibernate.show_sql" value="false"/>


On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, kenundrumz2100 <>wrote:

> Hey Mark,
> Thanks for the reply.
> We do not use maven for our builds.
> Also, we actually currently are doing the creation of the tables manually
> with the old fashioned SQL files like you talked about, but because we are
> still in a development stage we really don't want to add one more level of
> complexity to the steps. In this case, we don't want to have to alter the
> SQL scripts every time we want to add or remove or change a name of a
> variable, especially when the deployment container (in our case JBoss) will
> do that for us for free. It's just the OpenEJB mocked out container that
> has
> a problem dealing with the views. We really were hoping that the
> SyncronizeMappings class would have a parameter that would deal with this
> easily, or at least easier than we are having right now. I imagine we are
> not the first people to want to map views to entity beans, and i would like
> to hope someone out there has done something to unit test them together in
> a
> fashion.
> While we are open to the idea of SQL files if that is the only option, it
> just defiantly is not the best option, especially with how many tables we
> will be having at the end of the development cycle.
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the OpenEJB User mailing list archive at

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message