Hi Sahoo,
I am somewhat undecided about whether this change is a good idea or not.
You have done a good job at pointing out the benefits of this change
in the bug. (
https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1258)
The drawback of the fix is in the issue of portability. By the spec:
"To insure the portability of a Java SE application, it is necessary to
explicitly list
the managed persistence classes that are included in the persistence unit."
As a result, with this change, by default, an application that makes
use of this default is not portable. Before this fix, the user had to
explicitly specify something that would make their application non-portable.
I am not totally opposed to this change. I just think it merits some
discussion. Does anyone have any comments?
Assuming we come to a consensus about the desirability of the change,
the code change is fine.
-Tom
Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>
>Please review the fix for
>https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1258
>
>In order to test this functionality, I have also changed one of the
>persistence-units in entity-persistence-tests to not specify
>exclude-unlisted-classes.
>
>Thanks,
>Sahoo
>
>