> Hmmm... I don't think I like this. Even if the container enhancement of the > Entities would override the automatic PC proxies, the automatic PC would > just be extra overhead that would not be required. I would think that we > would not want this automatic PC feature to be in effect when we are running > with the container managed environment. Am I missing something that would > make this extra processing desirable?
Not that I know of, no. FWIW, note that it's only a cost at BrokerFactory construction time. -Patrick On 7/31/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Patrick. More comments below... > > > 1) How does this automatic persistence-capable feature mesh with the > > > > automatic container enhancement of Entities? That is, I would hope that > > if > > > an application server (ie. Container) is in the picture, then this new > > > automatic persistence-capable feature stays dormant. > > > > Currently, the automatic PC work will happen first in a Java EE 5 > > environment. > > > Hmmm... I don't think I like this. Even if the container enhancement of the > Entities would override the automatic PC proxies, the automatic PC would > just be extra overhead that would not be required. I would think that we > would not want this automatic PC feature to be in effect when we are running > with the container managed environment. Am I missing something that would > make this extra processing desirable? > > > I wouldn't want to > > > attempt to mix these two environments. If the container misses the > > > enhancement of an Entity (due to a bug or something), I wouldn't want > > this > > > new feature to kick in and possibly confuse the runtime environment of > > the > > > container and the associated OpenJPA runtime. > > > > I didn't put any code in place that disables this hybrid mode. It's > > definitely doable, though. > > > Okay. Might need that per my earlier comment. > > > 2) Is there a means to turn off this new feature? For example, suppose I > > > have an existing OpenJPA environment where I am either statically or > > > dynamically enhancing the Entities and I'm happy with this setup. But, > > then > > > I upgrade to a new version of OpenJPA with this new automatic > > > persistence-capable feature and I start to get difficult-to-diagnose > > > problems because some of my classes were pre-enhanced while others used > > this > > > new feature. I would like the ability to turn off this new feature if I > > > wish to run solely with the enhancement mechanism. > > > > I can't think of any environment in which only enhancing some classes > > would cause a problem. However, yes, the feature can be turned off, by > > specifying a javaagent with the flags set appropriately. > > > > We could add a configuration option that would influence both this and > > your point #1. > > > Sounds good. I think we need this to be configurable. > > > 3) To that end, I would assume that this new automatic > > persistence-capable > > > feature is the default action since we want the out-of-the-box > > experience to > > > be as easy as possible. > > > > Yes, it's the default. The QoS that you get depends on the version of > > Java that you're running; things will work better in Java SE 6, or in > > Java SE 5 + a javaagent setting. > > > Sounds good. > > > 4) What are we going to call this new automatic persistence-capable > > > feature? :-) I think we were just getting our users (existing and > > > potential) used to the "enhancement" concept and now we're throwing in a > > new > > > wrinkle. Maybe you've already nicknamed the support. I just couldn't > > find > > > a reference to it. > > > > I haven't come up with a name, but I'm not convinced that we need one > > in the long term. Instead, we need to change our docs etc. to make it > > clear that enhancement is optional. (I've done some work to that end > > already.) I'm open to suggestions, though. > > > You're right. It's the lack of the enhancement step that is the feature. I > guess I was thinking more along the lines of what we were going to call it > internally. Maybe we just coined it "automatic pc"... :-) > > Thanks for your quick reply! > Kevin > > -Patrick > > > > On 7/31/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Patrick, > > > I haven't had the time to study all of your proposed changes for > > OPENJPA-293 > > > and the related Issues, but I was wondering if you could enlighten my on > > a > > > couple of topics... > > > > > > 1) How does this automatic persistence-capable feature mesh with the > > > automatic container enhancement of Entities? That is, I would hope that > > if > > > an application server (ie. Container) is in the picture, then this new > > > automatic persistence-capable feature stays dormant. I wouldn't want to > > > attempt to mix these two environments. If the container misses the > > > enhancement of an Entity (due to a bug or something), I wouldn't want > > this > > > new feature to kick in and possibly confuse the runtime environment of > > the > > > container and the associated OpenJPA runtime. > > > > > > 2) Is there a means to turn off this new feature? For example, suppose > > I > > > have an existing OpenJPA environment where I am either statically or > > > dynamically enhancing the Entities and I'm happy with this setup. But, > > then > > > I upgrade to a new version of OpenJPA with this new automatic > > > persistence-capable feature and I start to get difficult-to-diagnose > > > problems because some of my classes were pre-enhanced while others used > > this > > > new feature. I would like the ability to turn off this new feature if I > > > wish to run solely with the enhancement mechanism. > > > > > > 3) To that end, I would assume that this new automatic > > persistence-capable > > > feature is the default action since we want the out-of-the-box > > experience to > > > be as easy as possible. > > > > > > 4) What are we going to call this new automatic persistence-capable > > > feature? :-) I think we were just getting our users (existing and > > > potential) used to the "enhancement" concept and now we're throwing in a > > new > > > wrinkle. Maybe you've already nicknamed the support. I just couldn't > > find > > > a reference to it. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > -- > > Patrick Linskey > > 202 669 5907 > > > -- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
