On 14/03/2012 1:11 PM, michael keith wrote:
exclude-unlisted-classes is true by default
There is an exclude-unlisted-classes setting in the persistence.xml file that *disables* scanning for entities, embeddables and mapped superclasses, but by default the provider is supposed to scan (when running in a container - outside the container it is not defined). This option was only added to enable a persistence unit to disable some classes from being considered even though they were in the same JAR.but the flag that controls scanning for persistence related classes is in the persistence.xml file as is the list of persistence related classes. By default the provider is not allowed to scan for classes. Many deployments occur without any orm.xml.I've uploaded a draft of the spec with the attribute converter additions to the document
downloads area, http://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/downloads.
The converter changes can be found in sections 3.7, 10.5, and 11.1.10-11.
The following open issues are pending:
* Conversion of @Id and @Version.
* Explicit listing of converters in persistence.xml file. I'm not sure I understand what
was being proposed here.
When the archive is not scanned (it's an option in persistence.xml), the provider has no way of finding the list of converters unless the user explicitly list them in persistence.xml like it does list classes.
OK, thanks -- so would you propose that they simply be listed using the class element?
These are O/R mapping classes. Why would they be listed in persistence.xml? The flag to not scan for annotations (the xml-mapping-metadata-complete option) is in the orm.xml mapping file, that is where I would expect to specify these when not using annotations, right?
In any case, my point was that this is an object-relational mapping class and by design we have always tried to keep the O/R mapping concepts in the orm.xml file (when we are talking about not relying upon the annotation sensing, which I believe was the point).
and so by default scanning by the provider must be *enabled*.
The scanning the container performs is defined elsewhere.
The only thing being discussed here is the auto scanning and how the provider should be notified of the converter classes when scanning is not enabled.
Requiring an orm.xml file just to list the converter classes seems out of place.
[jsr338-experts] Re: updated spec draft (converters)