Kevin Sutter closed OPENJPA-24.


> Allow OpenJPA to be extensible
> ------------------------------
>                 Key: OPENJPA-24
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-24
>             Project: OpenJPA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: kernel
>            Reporter: Kevin Sutter
>         Assigned To: Kevin Sutter
> The current OpenJPA architecture is not extendable to other implementations.  
> For example, if somebody wanted to provide their own PersistenceProvider 
> implementation, simply extending the 
> org.apache.openjpa.PersistenceProviderImpl would not suffice due to the 
> dependencies in the ConfigurationProviderImpl.  The discussion for this 
> improvement was started on the dev mailing list.  Once it was determined that 
> there was more to this request than a simple conditional or two, we decided 
> to open a JIRA report.
> The complete history of this request can be found in the OpenJPA dev mailing 
> list.  The first message was posted by me (Kevin Sutter) on August 14, titled 
> "Extending the OpenJPA Implementation".  I will attempt to paraphrase the 
> current state of the problem...
> We have three main players in this issue.  The PersistenceProvider, the 
> ConfigurationProvider, and the ProductDerivation (along with the various 
> implementations of these interfaces).  Currently, the ConfigurationProvider 
> is in the lib and is unaware of any specific persistence requirements.  The 
> ProductDerivation is in the kernel and, unfortunately, is aware of 
> persistence requirements, specifically the spec and store types.  Abe's 
> postings have indicated that we need to make these two interfaces more aware 
> of each other and work with each other.  We need to start with either making 
> ConfigurationProvider more persistence-aware and move it into kernel, or make 
> ProductDerivations less persistence-aware and move it into lib.  The latter 
> approach is preferred.
> After we get this re-organization of the base framework complete, we still 
> have a couple of other issues ot resolve:
>     *  Still need the ability to extend EMF's through a ProductDerivation.  
> This should be doable by adding a new PluginValue to indicate what class of 
> EMF to load.
>     *  There is still a question as to whether we will need to provide a 
> custom PersistenceProviderImpl and ConfigurationProviderImpl pair.  I still 
> think this will be necessary.   And, one of Abe's posts indicated that this 
> might help with class loading issues when multiple versions of OpenJPA-based 
> implementations are available in the same system.
> I also posted these questions last Friday.  (Abe has responded with some 
> answers, but I wanted to get this JIRA report created before trying to 
> paraphrase his answers.)
>     *  You mention in several places about separating away the notion of 
> specs and stores.  In a general sense, I understand what these are.  But, can 
> you elaborate on how these types are used in the ConfigurationProvider and 
> ProductDerivation interfaces?
>     * I've moved the ProductDerivation interface to the lib and added the 
> "load" methods from the ConfigurationProvider (as described in your previous 
> notes).  And, I've started to clean up the implementations that depend on 
> these interfaces.  But, concerning the implementation of the load methods...  
> Now that we need to return a ConfigurationProvider, would you expect that we 
> just new up a ConfigurationProviderImpl and then just call across to the 
> "load" methods on the implementation?  Since we want to keep the 
> ProductDerivations stateless, I'm not sure how else you were expecting to 
> create a ConfigurationProvider to return on these "load" methods.
>     * Now that ConfigurationProvider is bare, the 
> ConfigurationTestConfigurationProvider doesn't have much function.  I'll need 
> to take a look to see if this is even required any longer.
>     * Can you shed a bit more light on the Configurations class?  It doesn't 
> implement nor extend any interfaces or classes, but it seems to provide many 
> of the same methods as ConfigurationProvider, but as statics.  And, it's 
> dependent on having a Provider.  Can you explain the relationship of this 
> class in the bigger picture and how you think it might be affected by thes 
> changes?
> That's enough for the initial JIRA report.  We will now track this problem 
> here instead of the dev mailing list.  Thanks.
> Kevin

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: 
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Reply via email to