Hi Sahoo,
I am, in principal, ok with changing the default.
Here is a more general question. If we decide to change a default
like this (that could affect backward compatibility for some users).
How do we notify them? To me, just closing the issue is not really
adequate in the case were we are making a conscious choice to change
behavior rather than fixing something that is clearly a bug.
-Tom
Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>
>Tom Ware wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Sahoo,
>>
>> Choosing to just warn for an orm.xml file that does not exist was a
>>design choice. I think both the current behavior and the behavior you
>>are suggesting are quite reasonable.
>> We initially chose to only send a warning to allow developers to
>>continue to work with their persistence unit even if there were some
>>errors in some of the files. Changing the value
>>toplink.orm.throw.exceptions should allow the exceptions to actually
>>be thrown. Is simply documenting this property adequate to fix this
>>issue?
>>
>>
>No. I think, we should change the default (see further explanation given
>below) in addition to documenting the property.
>
>
>> Is there any particular reason why we are choosing to change this
>>default?
>>
>>
>>
>More often than not, an application will run into some kind of trouble
>if a mapping file is not processed. The submitter of issue #1051 also
>wants us to throw exception. I support him, because we both wasted 15 to
>20 minutes before we found out the typo in mapping file name. Given the
>number of messages that get logged, it is very easy to miss a warning.
>Why would a (real) developer ever want to specify a non-existent mapping
>file? So I think, throwing an exception is a more developer friendly
>choice.
>
>So, let me know if I can change the default behavior or not. I would
>also like to know what others think.
>
>Thanks,
>Sahoo
>
>
>>-Tom
>>
>>Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Tom,
>>>
>>>I am working on
>>>https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1051. The
>>>current behavior is to log a message when mapping file does not
>>>exist. I am planning to change it to throw an exception by default,
>>>but I see some entity-persistence-tests failing as they specifically
>>>test for the current behavior. The persistence.xml has such text:
>>><!-- this is here for testing purposes - ensures a persistence unit
>>>can load even with a file that does not exist. Please do not add an
>>>xml file called: META-INF/non-existant-orm-file.xml -->
>>>
>>><mapping-file>META-INF/non-existant-orm-file.xml</mapping-file>
>>>
>>>Is there a specific reason behind the current behavior? Can we change
>>>it?
>>>
>>>Also, what's this property called toplink.orm.throw.exceptions? I
>>>don't find any documentation for this property. It is used in current
>>>code.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Sahoo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>