>>>@Inject EntityManager does also work with our current implementation?
Yeah, it works! For example in reservation, it injects producer field. If
you inject via
@Inject @*EntityManagerQulifier EntityManager, it injects from producer
method.
*
2010/2/16 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> ah, I see now.
>
> But directly using the
> > private @Produces @PersistenceContext(unitName="reservation")
> > EntityManager entityManager;
>
> with
> private @Inject EntityManager em;
>
> does also work with our current implementation? (Didn't test this yet).
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di, 16.2.2010:
>
> > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com>
> > Betreff: Re: Reservation EntityManagerUtil
> > An: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> > Datum: Dienstag, 16. Februar, 2010 14:48 Uhr
> > >Writing something like
> > > private @Produces @PersistenceContext(unitName="
> > reservation") EntityManager entityManager;
> > >
> > > @Produces @RequestScoped
> > @org.apache.webbeans.reservation.bindings.EntityManagerQualifier
> > > public EntityManager createEntityManager()
> > > {
> > > return entityManager;
> > > }
> >
> > This is not related with discussion. Container always
> > throws
> > AmbigiousResolutionException because you define 2 producer
> > with same
> > @Default qualifier. I have eliminated this in Reservation
> > sample via
> > introducing qualifier.
> >
> > 2010/2/16 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> >
> > > Hi Gurkan!
> > >
> > > It seems we have a different understanding on 3.5.1
> > and I beg you to stop
> > > changing this parts until Gavin or Pete answers our
> > question. We must get a
> > > clear understanding on these points before releasing
> > M4 at least!
> > >
> > > Imho 3.5.1 is only meant as an example and directly
> > injecting
> > > @PersistenceContext is still perfectly valid (as it
> > was since the
> > > beginning).
> > >
> > > If you remember, the original section explicitly
> > stated that EXTENDED
> > > EntityManagers must not be used. This got dropped to
> > allow it's use in an SE
> > > environment. The @Dependent soft-restriction
> > (otherwise non portable
> > > behaviour) is still a left over from this period,
> > because this will only
> > > work with JTA aware transactional EntityManagers,
> > whereas for an extended
> > > EntityManager, something like @RequestScoped is
> > appropriate (otherwise our
> > > Transactional logic would not work!)
> > >
> > > Writing something like
> > > > private @Produces
> > @PersistenceContext(unitName="reservation")
> > > EntityManager entityManager;
> > > >
> > > > @Produces @RequestScoped
> > >
> > @org.apache.webbeans.reservation.bindings.EntityManagerQualifier
> > > > public EntityManager createEntityManager()
> > > > {
> > > > return entityManager;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > as we have now in the reservation example actually
> > HAVE to result in an
> > > AmbigousResolutionException.
> > > 1st bean: the producer field with type EntityManager
> > > 2nd bean: the producer method with type EntityManager
> > >
> > > I have not yet a final response from Gavin, but a
> > pre-commitment that our
> > > old behaviour was correct.
> > >
> > > Please let's discuss this in the afternoon and collect
> > arguments pro/con
> > > for both theories to jointly figure out which way we
> > need to go in the end.
> > >
> > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen
> > herausragenden Schutz
> > > gegen Massenmails.
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gurkan Erdogdu
> > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz
> gegen Massenmails.
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
--
Gurkan Erdogdu
http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
