openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Phill Moran" <pjmo...@rogers.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation
Date Fri, 04 May 2007 20:28:35 GMT
Here are two quickly made up thoughts (Google shows no one is using them at the
moment in open source)

"Persius" sounds a little like persistence, and is a good old name

I was thinking "North Sea" - Thinking association with platform (as in oil
platform) but that is a stretch so how about a Synonym "Dais"

Okay bring on the storm of "Dumb Idea" emails....

Phill

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:plinskey@gmail.com] 
Sent: May 4, 2007 4:00 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation

While we're on the topic, do you have any compelling new name ideas?
Clearly, if we had a new name handy, it could be advantageous to create that TLP
and then an OpenJPA subproject from the start. I don't think that we should hold
up the graduation for this, but it does seem like the thing that's easier to do
all at once.

-Patrick

On 5/4/07, Phill Moran <pjmoran@rogers.com> wrote:
> I agree with you on the name change and the timing around it. My 
> comments are mainly directed towards holding a non-representative name 
> if other APIs are implemented.
>
> A decision that can be made later along with any necessary 
> re-packaging needs
>
> Sincerely,
>         Phill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:plinskey@gmail.com]
> Sent: May 4, 2007 3:35 PM
> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation
>
> > I see a discontinuity in calling the project OpenJPA if in reality 
> > the project implements JDO and so forth.
>
> I agree; there is a logical disconnection here.
>
> > If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API 
> > pluggable/selectable
>
> The engine is very well-separated from the API as things stand now, 
> and the API is pluggable / selectable...
>
> > and the project is planning on implementing other APIs then a name 
> > change seems reasonable as it would not be representative of what we 
> > are
> providing.
>
> ... however, currently, the OpenJPA project only supports JPA 
> bindings. I'd like to see other bindings for OpenJPA, but as things 
> stand right now, things happen to line up nicely.
>
> > If we are to go down this path then I would further suggest we 
> > separate the engine and implementing APIS into separate 
> > jars/packages as it is wasteful an potentially dangerous to package 
> > all implementations
> together.
>
> This can actually be done today. The only distribution that the 
> OpenJPA community has published to date is a monolithic jar, but given 
> how the build process works today, it'd be fairly trivial to do something
else.
>
> I don't think that we should change the name right now. We (the 
> OpenJPA
> community) have built a name around the community, and there are 
> currently no plans that I know of to add new APIs on top of OpenJPA. I 
> think that we can always change the name of the underlying engine at a 
> later time with minimal disruption.
>
> If we do decide to change the name, I'd strongly suggest that we 
> create a TLP with some other more-flexible name, and then 
> simultaneously create a project within that TLP called 'OpenJPA', 
> which publishes a distribution that looks much like the current 
> incubating releases. Then, new API bindings could be started as sub-projects
within that TLP, rather than actually creating separate projects.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 5/4/07, Phill Moran <pjmoran@rogers.com> wrote:
> > Without getting any nastier let me explain. I see a discontinuity in 
> > calling the project OpenJPA if in reality the project implements JDO 
> > and so
> forth.
> > If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API 
> > pluggable/selectable and the project is planning on implementing 
> > other APIs then a name change seems reasonable as it would not be 
> > representative of
> what we are providing.
> > If we are to go down this path then I would further suggest we 
> > separate the engine and implementing APIS into separate 
> > jars/packages as it is wasteful an potentially dangerous to package 
> > all implementations
> together.
> >
> > That is all this little piece of the community has to say.
> >
> > Phill
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:dain@iq80.com]
> > Sent: May 4, 2007 2:50 PM
> > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation
> >
> > On May 4, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Phill Moran wrote:
> >
> > > Would we then not have to change the overall name from JPA to 
> > > openPersistence or some such?
> >
> > That would suck.  I see no reason we would "have to change" the name.
> > It is a choice of the community.
> >
> > > Why not let another project lift out the engine and adapt 
> > > JDO/SDO/ETC and maybe we remerge the projects later.
> >
> > I would hate to see a fork.
> >
> > > Maybe this idea works if we can fully separate the API from the 
> > > persistence engine as it does not make sense to go into production 
> > > with several unused API being deployed.
> >
> > It is already separated.
> >
> > -dain
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
>
>


--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907


Mime
View raw message