Skip to main content

[jsr338-experts] Re: [jpa-spec users] Re: support for multitenancy

  • From: michael keith <michael.keith@...>
  • To: jsr338-experts@...
  • Cc: Steve Ebersole <steve.ebersole@...>, Deepak Anupalli <deepak@...>
  • Subject: [jsr338-experts] Re: [jpa-spec users] Re: support for multitenancy
  • Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:13:19 -0400
  • Organization: Oracle Corporation

No, the problem is the ability to do application-managed SaaS tenant isolation conveniently. Your preconceived implementation approach is apparently to share an EMF, but that is by no means the problem, just one possible solution. I am proposing what I think is a much better one.

On 04/04/2012 9:28 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
Sorry Mike, but you are wrong. The feature discussed as "SaaS" here would use the same EMF for multiple tenants. That's the whole point/problem.


On 04/04/2012 03:47 AM, michael keith wrote:

We already have a solution to both of those problems, it's called an
EntityManagerFactory :-)

Really, though, an EMF is what isolates tenants from each other. The
problem is that people want to be able to define a single configuration
unit in their persistence.xml file and apply it to multiple tenants, i.e
vary it by tenant/connection information and get a new EMF for it.
People ask for this all the time. Support for a persistence template is
what I think would get us most of the way there.

For example, we could define a "javax.persistence.template" property
that could be passed to createEMF. One could create a new EMF from the
template simply by passing in the template and connection information:

Map<String,String> map = new HashMap<String,String>();
map.put("javax.persistence.jdbc.driver", "...");
...
map.put("javax.persistence.template", "SomePU");
EntityManagerFactory emf =
Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("MyPU", map);

This would look for the persistence unit named "SomePU" and dynamically
create a new persistence unit/EMF named "MyPU", using all the
information from "SomePU" but overriding connection params with the
props passed in the map.

Container support is a little more involved and would require some
additional integration than what we are planning to add to EE 7.

-Mike

On 02/04/2012 10:39 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
On Mon 02 Apr 2012 08:14:22 AM CDT, Deepak Anupalli wrote:
Linda,

Overall the proposal looks fine. However I was expecting an update to
JPA from the SaaS standpoint as well ("Application managed SaaS" in
your terminology :)), providing more flexibility to be able to work
with the prevailing database partitioning/sharding approaches.

-Deepak

The SaaS approach certainly adds more complexity. While I certainly
agree with Deepak here and think this is very widely useful, I guess
as a group we need to decide if the extra complexity is "worth it".
From my experience I can say that its actually not as complex as it
looks at first glance, if that helps. Really it came down to 2 things
that would affect stock JPA:

1) Getting Connections. For the SHARED_TABLE approach, this is not any
different. But for the other 2, the provider will need access to
tenant-specific Connections. And to date, JPA has not standardized the
contract for how providers obtain Connections which makes this a
little tricky.

2) Segmenting shared cache. Caching of data in the process-scoped,
shared cache needs to be segmented by each tenant since we are talking
about the same process. Actually this is a concern anyway in
implementing PaaS style multi-tenancy depending on how the cache
provider is deployed, so not sure this is that big of a deal.

Of course, as pointed out before, even if this is deemed outside the
scope of JPA 2.1, nothing stops the individual providers from
implementing this support.




[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Deepak Anupalli 04/02/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Steve Ebersole 04/02/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Werner Keil 04/02/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Deepak Anupalli 04/03/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Steve Ebersole 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

michael keith 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Steve Ebersole 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: [jpa-spec users] Re: support for multitenancy

michael keith 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: [jpa-spec users] Re: support for multitenancy

Pinaki Poddar 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: [jpa-spec users] Re: support for multitenancy

Steve Ebersole 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Gordon Yorke 04/18/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Gordon Yorke 04/18/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Linda DeMichiel 04/02/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Deepak Anupalli 04/03/2012

<Possible follow-up(s)>

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Pinaki Poddar 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

michael keith 04/04/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Steve Ebersole 04/10/2012

[jsr338-experts] Re: support for multitenancy

Linda DeMichiel 04/10/2012
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close