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 21:18:16 GMT
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is there a newer version of the API?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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message