> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
