openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter" <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OpenJPAPersistence extends Persistence; should we remove this?
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:57:11 GMT
Marina,

On 8/8/07, Marina Vatkina <Marina.Vatkina@sun.com> wrote:
>
> 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).


You are right.  I was confusing this with the PersistenceProvider spi.
Thanks for clarifying.

Kevin

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