Mike,
The current spec proposal says (6.2.1 persistence.xml file):
"The persistence element consists of one or more persistence-unit elements."
What are the minimum requirements for persistence.xml?
thanks,
-marina
Mike Keith wrote:
> If a persistence-unit is specified then its name must be present.
> However, there is no requirement that the file contain one or more
> persistence-units.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo [mailto:Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:41 PM
> > To: Mike Keith
> > Cc: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net; ejb3-toplink_at_Sun.COM;
> > ejb3-toplink_ww_at_oracle.com
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: persistence-api changes for new packaging
> > proposal]
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > Thanks for sending that schema. One minor comment:
> > Since name of a persistence-unit is no more optional, should
> > minOccurs
> > be 1 for persistence-unit?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sahoo
> >
> > Mike Keith wrote:
> >
> > >Sahoo, the latest updated persistence.xsd is attached.
> > >
> > >-Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo [mailto:Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM]
> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:08 PM
> > >>To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net; ejb3-toplink_at_sun.com;
> > >>ejb3-toplink_ww_at_oracle.com
> > >>Subject: [Fwd: Re: persistence-api changes for new
> > packaging proposal]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >