persistence@glassfish.java.net

Re: code review for issue #1258

From: Rebecca Parks <June.Parks_at_Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:55:14 -0700

I'm assuming this change (discovering annotated classes by default)
applies only to 9.1, not 9.0 UR1. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Because it's a non-portable feature, it deserves some mention in the docs.

Do the other non-portable features listed in 1) apply to both 9.0 UR1
and 9.1?

June

Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote On 10/06/06 07:59,:

> Hi Tom,
>
> While we are waiting for others' comments, I just want to say a couple
> more reasons in favor of the change:
>
> 1) We already support features that make persistence.xml non-portable.
> e.g. we don't require MappedSuperclass or Embeddable class names to be
> listed in persistence.xml. We support <jar-file> in Java SE
> environment which is not required to be supported.
>
> 2) Our competitors are taking this feature for granted as the
> following comment shows...
> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=38082#193940.
>
> Thanks again for getting back so quickly.
> Sahoo
>
> Tom Ware wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>