-
1. Re: HARDeployer changes proposal
sebersole May 25, 2005 2:29 PM (in response to tom.baeyens)So if you are not using the "auto-detection" fecture, why exactly even use the HARDeployer?
-
2. Re: HARDeployer changes proposal
sebersole May 25, 2005 2:31 PM (in response to tom.baeyens)The reason I ask that is because, aside from the aut-detection, all the other stuff there can be done directly through Hibernate itself.
-
3. Re: HARDeployer changes proposal
tom.baeyens May 25, 2005 2:41 PM (in response to tom.baeyens)jBPM's persistence is done with a wrapper around a hibernate Session and SessionFactory. (the wrapped session contains the hibernate queries and things like that)
the jBPM counterparts are called JbpmSessionFactory and JbpmSession. So i want to create a JBPMDeployer that puts the hibernate SessionFactory *and* the JbpmSessionFactory in JNDI.
I wanted to reuse the HARDeployer as a base class of the JBPMDeployer to reuse (and not duplicate) the managed properties.
regards, tom. -
4. Re: HARDeployer changes proposal
sebersole May 30, 2005 4:59 PM (in response to tom.baeyens)So then I'd suggest using the standard MBean that comes with Hibernate itself. That's a standard, vanilla MBean that will run in any JMX server.
Another option is to wait for something I have been concieving of for the integration code. It's basically the ability to define "satellite" deployments to a HAR deployment. Think of the satellites as extra bundles of mappings/classes to be incorporated into the built session factory; essentially they let you define modules for the session factory that can be dropped into the deploy directory by themselves, without the need to rebundle the main deployment unit. The session factory is rebuilt as additional modules are added (deployed) or removed (un-deployed).
Either way, I am against modifying the HARDeployer or Hibernate MBean in the manner you suggest. Depending on you exact need, one of the above suggestions is a better route to take. -
5. Re: HARDeployer changes proposal
tom.baeyens May 31, 2005 2:31 AM (in response to tom.baeyens)ok. i'll have a look at those options.
regards, tom.