openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation
Date Fri, 04 May 2007 20:00:21 GMT
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