I don't have a section devoted to J2SE issues, but I have J2SE info in
the chapter. A J2SE persistence.xml example is described in the
"Specifying the Database" section. The "Schema Generation Properties"
table describes J2SE behavior of the properties.
June
Marina Vatkina wrote On 10/06/06 10:24,:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>