[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-5178?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12843617#action_12843617
]
Donald Woods commented on GERONIMO-5178:
----------------------------------------
Rick, please ping me before changing the jpa_2.0_spec code, as we've had some
long discussions about how this should be handled over in OpenJPA (we currently
allow multiple providers to be specified as allowed by the Java ServiceLoader
spec) and have some legacy behaviors we need to support (like allowing users to
override the provider via properties.) There are also some tie-ins with Apache
Aries JPA support and we need the Spec API to continue support for Java SE 5
users and not rely on any Java SE 6 only APIs/behaviors.
> Inconsistent handling of META-INF/services files by different Geronmo specs.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GERONIMO-5178
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-5178
> Project: Geronimo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: public(Regular issues)
> Affects Versions: 3.0
> Reporter: Rick McGuire
> Assignee: Rick McGuire
> Fix For: 3.0
>
>
> A number of the Geronimo specs use the provider resolution pattern defined by
> the ServiceLoader class in Java 6 to resolve different provider classes. In
> this pattern, a file with a given class name in the META-INF/services
> directory can define one or more provider classes for a given source
> interface name. As implemented by the ServiceLoader class, these files can
> contain multiple lines with pure comment lines and line comments on lines
> that define classes, as well as multiple providers defined per file. Thus a
> file like this would be considered valiid:
> # A set of provider classes for the blah.blah interface
> org.apache.geronimo.foo.BlahImpl # The default first one
> org.apache.geronimo.bar.BlahImpl # The secondary fall back.
> The different spec projects that use these files parse them under different
> assumptions:
> - Some unilaterally take the first line without any comment processing at all
> or recognition that there might be multiple providers defined per file.
> - Some projects allow for pure comment lines but don't parse for comments on
> a definition line.
> - Not all projects are opening these files assuming a utf-8 encoding.
> This could best be solved by refactoring the code to use some common methods.
> This refactoring will also allow OSGi-awareness to be added to the service
> file lookups.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
