openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r525997 - in /incubator/openjpa/trunk: openjpa-jdbc/src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/jdbc/kernel/ openjpa-jdbc/src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/jdbc/sql/ openjpa-jdbc/src/main/resources/org/apache/openjpa/jdbc/kernel/ openjpa-jdbc/src/main
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:47:31 GMT

FWIW, my personal naming preference in descending order:

1. setTransactionIsolationLevel
2. setTransactionIsolation (user: "Is this a boolean? Of course I  
want my transactions to be isolated!")
3. setIsolation (user: "What exactly is being 'isolated'? The  
EntityManager or the cache or something?")
4. setIsolationLevel (same a #3)

I'd really be fine with any of them, though.


On Apr 6, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Abe White wrote:

>>> Why is this setting called "IsolationLevel" where our global setting
>>> is called "TransactionIsolation"?  Shouldn't this local setting just
>>> be called "Isolation" for consistency?  Same with the
>>> FetchPlan facade.
>>
>> Personally, I feel that 'IsolationLevel' is a more-well-known term  
>> for
>> the concept. I'm fine with either name, though.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?  I think get/setIsolation
> would be more consistent with the global TransactionIsolation
> property.  I doubt the lack of a "Level" suffix is going to hurt.
>
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may  
> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries   
> and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,   
> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for  
> the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you  
> are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in  
> error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.


Mime
View raw message