Just to answer from my own perspective. The spring docs imply that both solutions are worst case equal and guide the naive user towards the weaver. I found out with experimentation that build time was the way to go.
But even then that introduced a minute or two of build time in eclipse for minor changes which without hackery insists on a full project build. Which is expensive across many builds per day across multiple developers. Which compared to hibernate is silly. Pinaki Poddar <ppod...@apache.org> wrote: Hi, Following is from Rick's Spring reference [1] [1] http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/orm.html#orm-jpa-setup-lcemfb > When is load time weaving required? > > Not all JPA providers impose the need of a JVM agent (Hibernate being an > example). If your provider does not require an agent or you have other > alternatives (for example applying enhancements at build time through a > custom compiler or an ant task) the load time weaver *should not* be used. > Can you please elaborate why you did not prefer *build-time enhancement*? build-time enhancement is a) a simple post-compilation step b) easily integrable to any automated Ant/Maven based build environment c) saves a ton of trouble But it is not as popular as we would like it to be. I am just trying to understand why. ----- Pinaki -- View this message in context: http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/Problems-with-load-time-enhancement-and-Spring-s-TomcatInstrumentableClassLoader-tp6554347p6559761.html Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
