Re: [eclipselink-users] EclipseLink 2.2 PersistenceProvider osgi registe

[Tom Ware <tom.ware@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ahmed,

  In 2.2 we evolved our internal JPA support somewhat.  Although it is not 
Gemini-based, it is more service oriented - hence the EntityManagerFactory and 
EntityManagerFactoryBulider service.  You can use these things without Gemini.

  Your other alternative is to use the PersistenceProvider directly (i.e. call 
the API directly) - I think this is along the lines of what you are suggesting 
below.


-Tom

ahmed.aadel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Among others, here  is a snapshot of  some of eclipse active persistence 
> services on our osgi runtime:
>
> 10        ACTIVE      org.eclipse.persistence.asm_2.2.0.v20110202-r8913
> 13        ACTIVE      org.eclipse.persistence.jpa_2.2.0.v20110202-r8913
> 20        ACTIVE     
>  org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.osgi_2.2.0.v20110202-r8913
> 29        ACTIVE      org.eclipse.persistence.core_2.2.0.v20110202-r8913
> 58        ACTIVE      org.eclipse.persistence.antlr_2.2.0.v20110202-r8913
>
> We're running headless in an OSGi framework. The issue, I think, is that 
>  no instance of  "org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.osgi.PersistenceProvider" 
> is registered in the OSGi registry so that it can be tracked/looked-up 
> by other services.
>  I can see where the registration of "EntityManagerFactoryBuilder" and 
> "EntityManagerFactory" as osgi services is done, and service-track and 
> find them. But currently we need to be able to look up EclipseLink 
>  implementation in OSGi registry(under 
> javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider) as we could with EclipseLink 
> 2.1.  I can see "org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.osgi.PersistenceProvider" 
> in not an internal, so I think I can use/register an instance of it 
> directly in our osgi environment, only then, my question is how safe 
> compliance-wise doing so. Is there a reason omitting such registration?
>
> Thanks,
> Ahmed
>
>
> From: 	Tom Ware <tom.ware@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 	EclipseLink User Discussions <eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 	19-05-2011 15:49
> Subject: 	Re: [eclipselink-users] EclipseLink 2.2 PersistenceProvider 
> osgi registeration
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Although we recommend going to Gemini, our proprietary implementation 
> should
> still work. What are the symptoms of your problem?
>
> Which EclipseLink bundles are you deploying?  Is the
> org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.osgi bundle deployed?  Are all the bundles 
> starting
> correctly?
>
> The example that shows how our implementation works is here:
>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/svnroot/rt/org.eclipse.persistence/trunk/examples/org.eclipse.persistence.example.jpa.rcp.comics/ReadMe.txt
>
> Are you following the same basic steps?
>
> -Tom
>
> ahmed.aadel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>  > Hi All,
>  >
>  > I tried to move to EclipseLink 2.2. In our OSGi environment we track
>  >  "javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider"  implementations and use
>  > them depending on our clients choices.  I can see  EclipseLink 2.2 is no
>  > more registering its  j.p.spi.PersistenceProvider (osgi) implementation.
>  >  I read and understand the move towards integrating OSGi Enterprise (JPA
>  >  Persistence) using Gemini but we can't use it yet at our production
>  > stage, yet we need some new feature like: CascadeOnDelete.  So, If
>  > EclipseLink 2.2 is no more exposing its PersistenceProvider
>  > implementation but only osgi EMF and EMF Builder services, is it, then,
>  > safe to extend "org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.osgi.PersistenceProvider",
>  > and use it direclty to create  EM factories?
>  >
>  > Thank you.
>  >
>  > Ahmed Aadel
>  > Software Change Management
>  > remainsoftware.com
>  >
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > eclipselink-users mailing list
>  > eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>  > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-users mailing list
> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-users mailing list
> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users