Hi Marina,
Marina Vatkina wrote:
>Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>
>
>
>>Shelly (Donna) McGowan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Sahoo,
>>>
>>>Sure. I can do this today.
>>>
>>>Just to confirm,
>>>
>>>- no longer need to specify provider (in-container)
>>>- application.xml is no longer required
>>>- jta-datasource and non-jta-datasource do not co-exist
>>>- name element is required
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, you are correct in all the items.
>>
>>
>
>Sahoo, the latest proposal removed jta-datasource and
>non-jta-datasource restriction. Does the current code
>work differently?
>
>
We never imposed the restriction earlier, so no need to remove any thing.
Secondly, since we are not using the latest SPI to communicate with the
provider,
we won't be using the transaction-type attribute from persistence.xml.
This is something I had
mentioned in one of my earlier email.
Thanks,
Sahoo
>thanks,
>-marina
>
>
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>Sahoo
>>
>>
>>
>>>Shelly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote On 10/24/05 04:18,:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Shelly,
>>>> glassfish now supports packaging of JSR 220 entity beans in jar/war
>>>>files. Would you mind upgrading CTS tests to use the new packaging
>>>>format? At this point, I would suggest making just the necessary
>>>>changes, i.e. update the persistence.xml to new schema and change file
>>>>extension from par to jar. Let's not bundle the driver in a war file to
>>>>start with, let them be in an ejb-jar. Is it possible to test these
>>>>changes first? Once this works, we will change TopLink Essentials to use
>>>>the new SPIs. We are not changing TopLink Essentials at this point
>>>>because we want to do these changes in steps.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Sahoo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>