openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter" <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: API changes
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:40:44 GMT
I agree.  Let's be consistent.  If you go with FooType, then change
persistence.xml as well.  Otherwise, stick with FooMode.

On 8/20/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think that that means we should change the persistence.xml
> stuff, or go with the FooMode settings?
>
> It looks like the only ones that matter are EagerFetchMode,
> SubclassFetchMode, and ConnectionRetainMode. We also have
> ConnectionFactoryMode and TransactionMode, but these don't have
> corresponding enums, although there is still a consistency question.
>
> Also, for configuration settings, I'd be pretty happy just putting off
> the work until after 1.0. I don't think that consistency is as
> important there.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
>

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