I guess if your deploying into an "enterprise container", then EAR is fine, however if your deploying into Jetty then you don't have the possibility of deploying to EAR. I just think that having the possibility of creating either a merged project or a split project is important as JPA brings things to the table some great features that people should be able to use however they want.
IMO, the archetypes are enablers - I know we could create this stuff manually, but we want to enable people to be productive quickly. Thoughts? Tim On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, Derek Chen-Becker <[email protected]> wrote: > Works for me :) > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Timothy Perrett > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I 100% see why you want a seperate module for persistance, but > > workflow wise I've found JPA a lot more productive if it's in the lift > > app as it means you don't have to keep deploying the JAR into your > > local repo. > > > Perhaps > > > lift-jpa-archetype-blank-split > > lift-jpa-archetype-blank-consolidated > > > Thoughts? > > > Tim > > > On Apr 2, 7:33 am, Derek Chen-Becker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I thought I had sent out an email on the list earlier asking what people > > > would want to see in such an archetype. As a base, probably a master POM > > > with a module for the persistence unit and a module for the Lift side of > > > things. The persistence unit could have a skeleton persistence.xml in the > > > right place but otherwise be empty. The Lift side could have the basic > > Boot > > > and perhaps a Model class set up with a placeholder persistence setup. > > > Thoughts? > > > > Derek > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Timothy Perrett <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Glad im not the only one ;-) > > > > > On Apr 1, 11:15 pm, Viktor Klang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Timmy, > > > > > > yeah, I can see that coming in handy. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Viktor > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Tim Perrett <[email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > Do people see room for a blank JPA archetype just like we have > > blank > > > > > > and basic of normal lift archetypes? > > > > > > > IMO, whilst its great having the basic one for learning and > > examples, > > > > > > having something thats a workable starting point without having to > > > > > > remove code etc would be helpful. > > > > > > > I appreciate this is a bit lazy - but i don't think it would take > > much > > > > > > work and would provide a neat solution > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > -- > > > > > Viktor Klang > > > > > Senior Systems Analyst --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
