I may not have time for this for the next week or so.
Any committers want to volunteer to help out and evaluate this patch? - Dave On 7/21/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've uploaded a revised patch for ROL-1482 that includes jndi setup for the planet EMF. It also keeps the current non-jndi EMF setup by default, since I figured out how to override this in the geronimo plugin. It would be really great to get this into the next roller release as then we can release a geronimo-roller plugin. onto the build stuff... many thanks david jencks On Jul 20, 2007, at 3:57 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Dave wrote: > >> On 7/18/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I've been working with Peter Petersson to get roller 4 running on >>> geronimo 2, and we've now succeeded. As a result we have some ideas >>> to make roller more javaee friendly and geronimo friendly. >>> >>> 1. Provide an option to look up the EntityManagerFactory in jndi >>> rather than constructing it through java code. Generally in ee5 app >>> servers you want to use the ee5 mechanisms to access the ee5 >>> features :-) so just as there is an option to look up the datasource >>> in jndi rather than using a Driver class directly, it would be great >>> to have the option to look up the EMF in jndi as well. I don't >>> see a >>> convenient way to use the ee5 injection features since AFAICT there >>> aren't any managed objects (servlets, filters, listeners, or jsf >>> managed beans) very near the code that needs the EMF. I've >>> implemented this and it works in geronimo, see ROL-1482. The only >>> possibly objectionable part of this patch I can imagine is the >>> switch >>> to the servlet 2.5 schema for the persistence unit ref. In geronimo >>> at least we can work around a 2.4 web.xml if you don't want to >>> upgrade yet: the remainder of the patch would still be extremely >>> helpful. >> >> I don't think we want to require 2.5 yet. >> >> Thanks for the contribution, but I'm -1 on the patch because it does >> not address how to configure the EMF used by the Planet subsystem. > > True... I wonder why the app worked on geronimo since the > proprietary emf configuration in roller itself doesn't work on > geronimo. Anyway I'm fixing this. Since what I tried worked > without planet its not entirely sure I'll be able to figure out if > the change works. >> >> I'm not necessarily opposed to making the EMF configurable, but I >> don't need it and I'm not prepared to test it -- so I'm not overly >> inclined to apply the patch even when it handles both RollerPU and >> PlanetPU. > > Do you personally use and test both the jndi datasource lookup and > the Driver ways of getting a jdbc connection? >> >> Out of curiousity, what advantage does looking up the EMF instead of >> the DataSource via JNDI give to our users? > > Anyone who has used a javaee5 container is going to be used to > configuring jpa using persistence.xml rather than the well-hidden > properties files proprietary to roller/planet. Also your > configuration system doesn't actually let you set very much such as > non-jta-datasource or persistence provider. In geronimo at any > rate (I haven't looked at other servers) you can override most of > the contents of persistence.xml in the geronimo plan without > modifying the persistence.xml in the web app itself. Even without > this, modifying a couple of persistence.xmls to use say Kodo is a > lot easier than trying to find the code that currently decides > which persistence provider to use, modifying it, and figuring out > what you need to build to get it into the final product. > >> >> >>> 2.jpa mapping info. I notice you are currently using orm.xml files. >>> Do you have plans to move to annotations, and is anyone working on >>> that? Also IIUC it's possible to make the annotations or orm files >>> match the script generated schema more closely by including stuff >>> like column sizes, does anyone have an opinion on if that is >>> desirable? >> >> I think consensus is that annotations are better here, but we haven't >> had the time yet to move from XML files to annotations. > > In the unlikely event I have some spare time I may work on a patch > for this. > >> >> >>> 3. For deployment in geronimo, and use in a geronimo plugin, we need >>> to get at at least the roller war and possibly some inner details >>> such as the core jar. It would be most convenient for us if these >>> were available through a maven repository. So this leads to the >>> questions... >> >>> 3a. Would you consider including some use of the maven ant tasks in >>> the ant build scripts to get various artifacts into maven >>> repositories? >> >> Yes. >> > Thanks, I'll work on this. > >> >>> 3b Are you completely thrilled with the ant build or would you be >>> interested in considering a maven build system? >> >> I satisfied with Ant and have had nothing but trouble with Maven. >> Every time I've used it I've run into problems that I could not debug >> due to its black-box nature. >> >> I understand there are advantages to moving to Maven, and all of my >> previous troubles might have been stupid user-error on my part, >> but at >> this time I'm not interested in doing the work to rewrite the build. >> If somebody else did the work, I'd be happy to consider their >> patch/branch. > > This might be a longer term goal.... lets start small > > thanks > david jencks > >> >> - Dave >
