Thanks folks ... So we have to find otherway to replace default JPA provider class name I think.
I would be thankful if somebody please review GERONIMO-2899 JIRA patch too and let me know the status. :) Thanks Again, Lasantha > On Feb 28, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > >> On 2/28/07, Lasantha Ranaweera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> For the JPA side I think now we need not hard coded openjpa JPA >>> provider >>> class name. Am I correct David (Is there any situations where >>> both CMP >>> and JPA comes together)? >> >> As far as I understand the spec, ear can contain CMPs and JPA >> entities. It's not recommended that CMPs and JPAs are mixed together >> in one jar file, but it's very legitimate to have them separated in >> two jars bundled in one ear (I'd be glad if someone - perhaps one with >> leading 'D' in his first name, could verify my understanding, though >> ;-)). > > That is the standard recommendation, but doesn't hold for Geronimo or > OpenEJB. The reason that experts recommend this is because normally > the CMP and JPA are separate persistence systems. This means that > you have two separate caches, locks, flush semantics and so on, so if > you are not careful you can corrupt your database. In OpenEJB we > chose to use JPA for the CMP implementation, which means you only > have one system with two views, so you in general don't have the > perviously mentioned problems. > > -dain >
