Tom Ware wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>>
>>> 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
>
>
> Let me know when we are ready.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> ok
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> ok. I suggest I do #3 and you do #4.
Sure. One thing I don't want to miss. When you do #3, please also stop
using javax.persistence.spi.InstrumentableClassLoader in
entity-persistence? That class need to be removed from that package. I
shall do that after making necessary changes in container.
Thanks,
Sahoo
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>