Gordon is correct. The oracle.toplink.essentials.PersistenceProvider
class is intended to provide a more intuitive way of specifying the
persistence provider. I expect both
oracle.toplink.essentials.PersistenceProvider and
oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.EntityManagerFactoryProvider to
continue working indefinitely.
-Tom
Gordon Yorke wrote:
> Not speaking for Tom but we wanted a 'better' name for the public
> PersistenceProvider class that would be referenced by users. Think of
> it as a simple public wrapper.
> --Gordon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM [mailto:Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM]*On
> Behalf Of *Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo
> *Sent:* Friday, August 04, 2006 2:41 AM
> *To:* persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> *Subject:* What is the use of
> oracle.toplink.essentials.PersistenceProvider.class?
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> What is the use of
> oracle.toplink.essentials.PersistenceProvider.class which is just
> an empty class as shown below:
>
> /package oracle.toplink.essentials;
>
> import
> oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.EntityManagerFactoryProvider;
>
> /**
> * This is the TopLink EJB 3.0 provider
> */
> public class PersistenceProvider extends
> EntityManagerFactoryProvider {
>
> }
>
> /We in GlassFish use
> oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.EntityManagerFactoryProvider as
> the persistence provider. Is there a potential mismatch here?
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>