Hi Tom,
Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> Tom Ware wrote:
>
>> Sahoo,
>>
>> Here is my plan.
>>
>> I will implement a TopLink version that will handle both
>> PersistenceInfo (the old class) and PersistenceUnitInfo (the new
>> class). That way we can do a more seamless transition.
>>
>> I am attaching my version of PersistenceUnitInfo(cut and pasted from
>> the spec) and one class it is dependant on. I believe it can be
>> checked at in any time.
>>
> I have checked them in this morning after adding CDDL headers.
>
>> After it is checked in, we can do the TopLink part of the work in 4
>> phases.
>>
>> 1. Check in the TopLink version that implements both versions
>
>
> I have asked Shelly to update CTS to new spec and run one round of
> CTS. That way we would know if there was any regression in packaging
> changes that I had committed. After that you can do this change. What
> do you suggest?
Thanks to Shelly. She has migrated all the CTS tests to use the new
packaging format and had complete run of CTS. There were no new
failures. So now you can make the above change. Let me know once you
have done this.
Thanks,
Sahoo
>
>> 2. Check in the Glassfish version that uses the new TopLink
>> implementation
>
>
> I have the changes in my local workspace. I can check them in after
> you make change #1.
>
>> 3. Remove the dependance on the old version from TopLink
>> 4. Delete the PersistenceInfo class.
>
>
> #3 & #4 can be done after #2 either by you or me.
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
>>
>> Let me know what you think,
>> Tom
>>
>> Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Team,
>>> This is my plans for making changes in glassfish to the latest
>>> packaging changes:
>>>
>>> 1) I will use the latest proposal (the one sent by Linda yesterday).
>>> I will update persistence.xsd so that CTS tests can be migrated from
>>> par to jar as well as to new schema at the same time.
>>>
>>> 2) Not all features from the new packaging spec will be supported in
>>> the initial check in. We will support the persistence unit to be
>>> part of ejb-jar (stand alone as well as embedded), embedded war and
>>> embedded library jar. The rest will be implemented subsequently.
>>>
>>> 3) To minimize the amount of changes in one check in, we will not
>>> update the javax.persistence.spi interfaces in the first check in.
>>> So to start with we don't have to change the part of TopLink
>>> Essential that runs inside container. All the supported features
>>> would work fine. Once the first phase of container changes are made,
>>> in the second phase both container and TopLink Essential will be
>>> modified to use the new SPI.
>>> I hope to check in the first set of changes by Monday (subject to
>>> getting review comments from all reviewers).
>>> The second phase of changes would include update to the SPIs. This
>>> will be done mid next week (*Tom, please confirm, whether this is OK
>>> with you or not*). This will be transparent to users.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sahoo
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: persistence-api changes for new packaging proposal
>>> From:
>>> Tom Ware <tom.ware_at_oracle.com>
>>> Date:
>>> Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:25:48 -0400
>>> To:
>>> Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo <Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM>
>>>
>>> To:
>>> Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo <Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "the latest proposal"? Are you referring to
>>>>> the version of the proposal you sent me (dated 9/12/05)?
>>>>>
>>>> No. There was a new proposal sent out yesterday by Linda and Mike.
>>>> Have you not seen it?
>>>>
>>> Ok, I'll use that one.
>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned in my earlier email, the changes we have to make in
>>>>> order to be functional on the application server are minimal.
>>>>> Essentially, we just need to update our implementation of
>>>>> PersistenceInfo so that it will compile. You mentioned yesterday
>>>>> that you thought we could come initial work without the change to
>>>>> javax.persistence.PersitenceInfo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer this way as opposed to changing both container and
>>>> provider at the same time. What do you say?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's fine with me.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sahoo
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>> First we need to agree on the persistence-api changes. The
>>>>>> latest proposal now contains the schema and changed APIs. Do you
>>>>>> plan to use them or do you have some other version? In any case,
>>>>>> if you have the .java files and .xsd files, please send them to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Sahoo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>