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).
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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
