June,
This is for outside of the container. Do you have a section on that?
thanks,
-marina
Rebecca Parks wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>