openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
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
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:42:17 GMT
On 4/6/07, Abe White <awhite@bea.com> 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.


I'm inclined to agree with Abe - it matches the
java.sql.Connectioninterface and should be standard enough. It's not a
big deal IMHO but it
doesn't hurt to be consistent.

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.
>



-- 
-Michael Dick

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message