openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marina Vatkina <Marina.Vatk...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: OpenJPAPersistence extends Persistence; should we remove this?
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:19:22 GMT
Kevin,

Are you talking about Java EE 5 containers or J2EE4 and pure web-containers? The 
formers should not use Persistence class to load container-managed persistence 
units (according to the spec).

thanks,
-marina

Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Our experience is that Containers want no knowledge of the specific
> provider.  They need the ability to plug in any provider and the more they
> can shield themselves from knowing the specific provider, the better.  The
> Persistence class provides this generic interface for creating the
> EMFactories.  My point being that I wouldn't use Container usage as a
> possible reason for making this separation.
> 
> I guess I'm not clear on the static registry problems that have been
> encountered, so I can't really comment on whether making this separation
> would be buy us anything.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> On 8/8/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>However, I can't imagine how simply removing the inheritance
>>>connection would solve anything. Are you suggesting that we replicate
>>>the Persistence functionality (like createEntityManagerFactory()) in
>>>our own OpenJPAPersistence class?
>>
>>No; I just think that if we weren't ever explicitly linking to it,
>>then containers / users could do more interesting things with their
>>classloaders. They'd still be subject to issues with Persistence, but
>>they could always choose to directly create a PersistenceProviderImpl
>>and bypass the Persistence class.
>>
>>-Patrick
>>
>>On 8/8/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Patrick-
>>>
>>>I don't know anything about the nature of the problems with the
>>>Persistence provider registry, but I don't see any reason why
>>>OpenJPAPersistence should need to extend Persistence.
>>>
>>>However, I can't imagine how simply removing the inheritance
>>>connection would solve anything. Are you suggesting that we replicate
>>>the Persistence functionality (like createEntityManagerFactory()) in
>>>our own OpenJPAPersistence class?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>We've run into a couple of problems with the static registry
>>>>maintained in the Persistence class. Should we isolate ourselves from
>>>>it by making OpenJPAPersistence not extend Persistence? If we did so,
>>>>it would be pretty straightforward for OpenJPA to never reference
>>>>Persistence, which would mean that people who ran into trouble with
>>>>that class could work around the problems by using OpenJPA APIs
>>>>instead.
>>>>
>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>-Patrick
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Patrick Linskey
>>>>202 669 5907
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Patrick Linskey
>>202 669 5907
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message