Well, I have never used Hibernate, so the 'conformance' is foreign to me. When developing 'pure' EJB apps in the past, the default I don't need to worry about putting my entities in a certain place, I guess it is confusing when coming from a pure EJB development to tapestry, because this behavior is more restrictive than 'plain' EJB and when introducing tapestry to an existing project, I have to add the packages explicitly I guess...
There is another problem that is cropping up but I will send another email about this. On Jul 12, 2011, at 3:54 AM, Igor Drobiazko wrote: > Currently, Tapestry excludes the unlisted managed classes. The > <exclude-unlisted-classes> > tag in the persistence descriptor is ignored, so that the following method > always returns true. > > http://download.oracle.com/javaee/5/api/javax/persistence/spi/PersistenceUnitInfo.html#excludeUnlistedClasses%28%29 > > The reason is: I'm not sure if it a good idea to scan the entire classpath > for managed entities. That's why the entities need to be listed explicitly; > this is done by putting them into entities sub-package. > This behavior conforms to the Hibernate integration lib. > > Is it confusing? > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us>wrote: > >> Just curious... how do they get instrumented? >> Are there any side-effects of not putting them into a package that Tapestry >> knows about? >> >> Thanks! >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > Igor Drobiazko > http://tapestry5.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
