Hi Mike,
After going through bugs like
https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=77 I am taking a
slightly difference stance. From an ease of use point of view, we should
restrict EAR scoped persistence jars to lib directory only. I shall give
another example of making this mistake even more easily:
app.ear // no application.xml
ejb.jar // contains classes with @Stateless, has an injected PU
called "em1"
par.jar // contains persistence.xml which defines a PU named
"em1", but this jar by mistake also contains a class with @Stateless
Because of module discovery rules, par.jar is considered to be an
ejb-jar and hence it's PU is local to that ejb-jar -- contrary to what
user wanted. Hence the app would fail to deploy.
More over, to be consistent with the *non-component* status given to
persistence jars, we should limit them to lib directory only. (I know
in my other email I asked the question as to why EAR scoped persistence
jar files can not be placed in any arbitrary directory structure, but
then after going thru' your response I think I was wrong in comparing
persistence jars with components).
This definitely reduces complexities for users as well as for container
implementors (I am not biased by the later one because we have already
implemented it).
Thanks & regards,
Sahoo
Mike Keith wrote:
>Sahoo,
>
>The intent of this paragraph was to indicate that the classes
>in the persistence unit should be configured to be on the application
>classpath by the user, not by the Container. However, the more that
>persistence units appear to be like other type of Java EE modules
>(for example, if Bill Shannnon agreed to satisfy the previous question
>that you asked about allowing them to be in different directories from
>the root) then I feel that it might make more sense for the Container to
>place these jars on the application classpath (logically adding them to
>the lib dir).
>
>-Mike
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo [mailto:Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM]
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:15 AM
>>To: Mike Keith
>>Cc: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>Subject: EAR scope persistence jar and classpath
>>
>>
>>Hi Mike,
>>Referring to the latest packaging proposal (10/19), I see the
>>following
>>is mentioned in section #6.2.
>>"All persistence classes defined at the level of the Java EE
>>EAR must be
>>accessible to all other Java EE
>>components in the application— i.e. loaded by the application
>>classloader— such that if the same entity
>>class is referenced by two different Java EE components (which may be
>>using different persistence
>>units), the referenced class is the same identical class."
>>
>>Is container responsible for making the EAR scoped persistence jars
>>available to all other components in the EAR even if user has not
>>explicitly specified a dependency on those jar files using Class-Path
>>manifest in individual component's manifest file? This
>>indirectly means
>>they are treated as library jar files even though they are
>>not placed in
>>library directory of EAR file.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Sahoo
>>
>>
>>