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 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:08:54 GMT
They are part of 1.0.2 which is newer than 1.0b. We know it's confusing, but 
apparently 1.0b was the wrong numbering sequence.

thanks,
-marina

Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Marina,
> 
> On 8/8/07, Marina Vatkina <Marina.Vatkina@sun.com> wrote:
> 
>>The updated jars are available already in the maven repository.
> 
> 
> 
> Are these considered part of the 1.0b version of the Persistence API?  Or,
> is there a newer version of the API?  I noticed that we (OpenJPA) are
> pulling in the 1.0b version of the Persistence API.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> -marina
> 
>>Pinaki Poddar wrote:
>>
>>> > I guess I'm not clear on the static registry problems that have been
>>>encountered,
>>>
>>>The static registry problem is javax.persistence.Persistence class
>>>searched for all registered PersistenceProvider, loaded them and cached
>>>them in its own *static* variable.
>>>In a deploy-undeploy-redeploy scenario, the previously cached versions
>>>of
>>>PersistenceProvider became invalid. The issue is detailed in [1] and few
>>>other usability improvements of Persistence in [2].
>>>
>>>The issue had been filed at GlassFish forum and now been resolved. I am
>>>not sure when this will be available though.
>>>
>>>[1] https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3229
>>>[2] https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2814
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Pinaki Poddar
>>>972.834.2865
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Kevin Sutter [mailto:kwsutter@gmail.com]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:12 PM
>>>To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
>>>Subject: Re: OpenJPAPersistence extends Persistence; should we remove
>>>this?
>>>
>>>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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message