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: API changes
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:55:18 GMT

A agree with Kevin that I lean towards FooType, however I feel it is  
more important to maintain consistency with the persistence.xml names  
in cases where there is a choice to be made between FooType and FooMode.



On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:49 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> So one issue with this is that some of these settings are configurable
> in persistence.xml, and we use 'FooMode' there. For example,
> ConnectionRetainMode.
>
> This is easy enough to fix, and can be done in the future by
> deprecating the current setting, so it's probably not a big
> consideration.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 8/20/07, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Patrick,
>> If I was forced to pick one, I would go with FooType, but I am  
>> flexible
>> either way.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> On 8/20/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think that I'm mostly done with the API changes -- see  
>>> OPENJPA-317.
>>>
>>> One outstanding issue is a naming problem. Internally, we use a
>>> 'FooMode' naming structure for lots of our symbolic constants,  
>>> but the
>>> JPA spec uses a 'FooType' naming structure for its enums. Which  
>>> should
>>> we obey? The most recent patch mostly goes the 'FooType' route.
>>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick Linskey
>>> 202 669 5907
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907


Mime
View raw message