Both would actually function. User preference would dictate which is used.
Thoughts? Given the choice, which would you use? See any third options
that might be cooler?
AppContext, ModuleContext, and BeanContext would each get a
`Configuration` bucket. There might be a better name than
-1 for servercontext, i'd prefer producers with read only context if
mandatory or the opposite, a serverbuilder making all the conf fluent in a
single method.
exabrial wrote
The only thing I'm picky about is having one way of specifying the data.
Having multiple ways to specify the same thing will likely confuse
newcowers:
Configuration
AsynchronousPool
CorePoolSize = 10
Configuration
Hi,
yes, I'm using the most recent version from the trunk. I also assembled two
simple test packages:
http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/file/n4657131/war_test.war war_test.war
contains a single bean annotated with @Named, and an index.xhtml using this
bean; if the CDI scan was successful, the
On Aug 26, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
I'm implementing https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-731
I'm adding it to:
org.apache.openejb.config.rules.CheckPersistenceRefs
but I think I need the real PersistenceUnit, what is the best way to get it ?
The persistence-unit
