Marina, On 8/8/07, Marina Vatkina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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).
You are right. I was confusing this with the PersistenceProvider spi. Thanks for clarifying. Kevin 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 > >> > > > > >
