[
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-6897?page=c...
]
Scott Marlow commented on HHH-6897:
-----------------------------------
With my current changes so far, we support an explicit property
"hibernate.entitymanager_factory_name" as EMF name. If that property is not
specified, we are defaulting to the non qualified persistence unit name.
I am thinking that any EE containers that clusters with Hibernate, should specify a
cluster wide value for the "hibernate.entitymanager_factory_name" property. Is
there some integration case (current/future) that would have a problem specifying this
property in a cluster?
Regarding whether to continue using the pu name as the default EMF name or an uuid. Using
the pu name creates a compatibility issue for applications (they will fail to deploy).
The failure will occur because the pu name is not required to be unique.
I'm preferring uuid again at the moment.
serialization of the EntityManager should be possible
-----------------------------------------------------
Key: HHH-6897
URL:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-6897
Project: Hibernate Core
Issue Type: Task
Affects Versions: 4.0.0.CR7
Reporter: Scott Marlow
Assignee: Scott Marlow
Fix For: 4.0.1
http://pastie.org/3018508 contains the NotSerializableException:
org.hibernate.service.internal.StandardServiceRegistryImpl exception and
http://pastie.org/3018879 describes some of contained values that don't appear to be
serializable.
I would like to see this fixed in either 4.0.0.Final or a 4.0.1.Final (if that could
happen in time). I'll have more information soon, regarding fix version.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira