Inline...
>> Call it what you want -- I only proposed these names. I
>wouldn't call
>> it persistence.xml, as the contents are not the same as the
>> JPA-specified content. If the persistence.xml is found, its contents
>> are of course interpretable by the JDO implementation
>according to our
>> JPA alignment verbage defined in JDO 2.1.
>
>ok. So a JDO2.1 impl has to understand both "persistence.xml"
>(JPA format) and
>this "jdo.xml" ? No problem if that is the case but just want
>to understand
>what we're specifying here since not everyone was on this conf call.
>
Yes, this is correct. I guess since JPA, which uses the base namespace
"javax.persistence" and calls the file "persistence.xml", then we should
probably call JDO bootstrap file "jdo.xml". Done.
>> >We could use the
>> >same boot idea as JPA and have a
>META-INF/services/javax.jdo.XXX file
>> >defining the PMF(s) available, and it takes the one that
>> >claims it supports
>> >the required "persistence-unit" (or PMF)
>>
>> I like this suggestion! I assume the following would be
>true -- please
>> correct where I've got it wrong.
>>
>> * The name of this file is
>> "META-INF/services/javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactory"
>> * This is a text file
>> * The contents of the file would be the name of the provider's
>> implementation class of javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactory
>
>Yes. See a mail by Erik to the lists on 19/01/2007 called
>"Proposal for
>Service Discovery". JDOHelper would then have the job of
>finding all services
>files of this name ("javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactory"),
>and from the
>contents finding the relevant PMF to instantiate for a
>particular PMF name.
>
>
>Since this appears to be an extension to JDO and not the
>simple mapping across
>of terminology JDO-JPA (being able to read a
>"persistence.xml"), I'd ask are
>we just confusing users by having "persistenceUnitName" and
>"transactionType"
>for when a JDO impl reads a "persistence.xml", yet here we
>also have a PMF
>name (which is the same as a persistence-unit name) for when
>we use this
>file.
>
This was brought up on the conference call. A "persistence unit" is the
same thing as a "named PMF". We decided that we won't use the term
"named PMF" in the specification -- we'll just go with "persistence
unit". There will be a JPA flavor (already specified) and a
corresponding JDO flavor (adding a name to a PMF, the getName() method).
As far as transaction type, I think they're the same. Craig, can you
please comment on transaction type?
-matthew
