Ah, nice. I did not even think of reusing SESSION_FACTORY_NAME for the EMF name, but that should work well.
On Wed 08 Feb 2012 01:26:30 PM CST, Scott Marlow wrote: > 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. >>>> >>> > -- st...@hibernate.org http://hibernate.org _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
