I assume no responses means everyone is ok with this change. Hopefully I will start on those changes next week; for certain I would like to get it done before the meeting On Aug 23, 2012 8:28 AM, "Steve Ebersole" <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> The initial design I had for building a SessionFactory using the new > metamodel was 3 steps: > > 1) build ServiceRegistry > 2) build Metadata > 3) build SessionFactory using both ServiceRegistry and Metadata > > This changed a little as actually implemented in the metamodel branch: > 1) build "boot strap" service registry > 2) build basic service registry > 3) build MetadataSources > 4) build Metadata > 5) build SessionFactory using both basic service registry and Metadata > > I would like to change this slightly based on JPA 2.1 work and integrating > that with containers (mainly through planning with Scott for JBoss AS). > > <background> > Essentially Scott and I made a change proposal to JPA EG for how managed > EMF bootstrapping happens to better account for stuff in the container's > environment not being available until certain times. It is a typical "hole > in the interaction of specs" deal. Long story short, we want to make boot > strapping of an EMF into 2 distinct phases. Whether or not that gets > accepted/approved, we will implement this approach for Hibernate EMF > bootstrapping and JBoss AS will leverage it. > > The 2 phases are meant to account for container resources not being > available or the need to delay classloading. > </background> > > The changes I propose would just be ordering: > -- phase 1 -- > 1) build "boot strap" service registry > 2) build MetadataSources > -- phase 2 -- > 3) build basic service registry > 4) build Metadata > 5) build SessionFactory using both basic service registry and Metadata > > > -- > st...@hibernate.org > http://hibernate.org > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
