openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OpenJPAPersistence extends Persistence; should we remove this?
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:39:06 GMT
> 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