I'll set the EntityManagerFactory name to: (1) explicit AvailableSettings.SESSION_FACTORY_NAME if specified (2) use application specified pu-name if pu-name is specified (not always the case, especially in test environments) (3) uuid
On 02/08/2012 11:08 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > If I understand correctly you are thinking there is a case where the > "PU name" would not be unique for a given app? That is the only time > I can see this being a concern. If it is possible that the same app > can have different PU names on different nodes in the cluster then > simply using PU name as EMF name wont work there. But pretty sure I > said that this will need to allow explicitly setting of the EMF name. > > But regardless UUID will never work in a cluster. Thats been covered > a few times here. UUID is merely a fallback which assumes ser and > deser happen in the same VM. > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Scott Marlow<smar...@redhat.com> wrote: >> It wouldn't be difficult to switch back to using UUIDs in the EMF. Neither >> way is perfect (see discussion on HHH-6897). >> >> >> >> On 02/08/2012 08:28 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: >>> >>> On 02/08/2012 04:23 AM, Christian Bauer wrote: >>>> >>>> (For whatever reason, I still don't understand why EMF clustering would >>>> be different than SF clustering.) >>> >>> >>> This is exactly the point I am missing here as well. >>> >> _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
