this is not opposed while we don't have details...and once again it was mainly to show the app handles the lifecycle and not each lib. If the example is bad and doesn't speak for you just forget it please.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-08 21:22 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > Agree that the JPA_CONTAINER example is very bad. Usually the configuration > for JPA is not done on the JPA container level but for each persistence unit. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > >> On Thursday, 8 January 2015, 18:11, Werner Keil <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Especially with the JPA example, I would not even be sure if a >> "JPA_CONTAINER" is a proper "common container", at most >> something more >> general. >> Should there be something like it now, I guess we might better reconsider >> some of them. >> >> Could be a different thread. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Guess it was only for common containers - and was not the purpose of >>> my mail BTW. >>> >>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> @rmannibucau >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau >>> >>> >>> 2015-01-08 17:58 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <[email protected]>: >>> > Do we really want to define constants like >>> > ContainerFactory.JPA_CONTAINER >>> > ContainerFactory.BVAL_CONTAINER,...?? >>> > >>> > Regardless if that was a string, numeric value or enum, it'll be >> as >>> > restrictive as that ProjectStage in JSF or worse. >>> > Just to name a few for some Spring container you may have a >>> > SPRING_THIS_CONTAINER or SPRING_THAT_CONTAINER, BPM solutions had a >>> > BPM_CONTAINER, the possibilities are endless. I wouldn't even >> start >>> unless >>> > it was something as trivial as "Web Container" vs. >> "Enterprise Container" >>> > which we also find in WAR vs. EAR. Everything else is totally context- >> or >>> > application specific. >>> > >>> > Werner >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Tresch, Anatole < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> @Anatole I don't question everything, but as the discussions >> are still >>> >> ongoing I wanted to have a clean sheet discussion about it. >>> >> -> Easy! I just tried to summarize the main point IMO, no bad >> feelings. >>> I >>> >> think we have found a good discussion culture now, and I am happy >> when >>> we >>> >> can keep that ;) >>> >> >>> >>
