openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <>
Subject RE: Extending the OpenJPA implementation
Date Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:50:38 GMT
> On 8/14/06, Abe White <> wrote:
> >
> > >> ConfigurationProviders don't know anything about
> > >> PersistenceProviders,
> > >> of course, and need to be constructible via a no-args 
> constructor.
> > >> But
> > >> maybe the PersistenceProviderImpl could populate the
> > >> ConfigurationProvdierImpl with information about which 
> subclass of
> > >> PersistenceProviderImpl it should succeed for.
> >
> > I've come up with the beginnings of an idea of how to fix this.  The
> > idea ties in nicely with something else I've been wanting 
> to do for a
> > while, which is get rid of ConfigurationProviders as a service, and
> > do everything through ProductDerivations.
> >
> > If no one has any objections, I can play around with this later in
> > the week.
> This sounds good since I was wondering how these two services 
> fit together.
> Can you shed some more light on how you plan to resolve this?

I'm not sure what Abe's thinking about, but it's probably worth knowing
that ProductDerivations are pretty new to the codebase, whereas
ConfigurationProviders are a bit older. Basically, they represent a
relatively similar concept, but have different lifecycles (and
ProductDerivation has a more fine-grained lifecycle). ProductDerivations
allow more dimensions of configurability.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

View raw message