openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation
Date Fri, 04 May 2007 22:15:29 GMT
"Gavindakeith"

geir

On May 4, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Phill Moran wrote:

> 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