Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 80891 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2007 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2007 23:21:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 17784 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2007 23:21:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 17748 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2007 23:21:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 17739 invoked by uid 99); 16 Aug 2007 23:21:51 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:21:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.4] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:22:13 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979567141FD for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <11313851.1187306490596.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Craig Russell (JIRA)" To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (OPENJPA-317) API formalization pre-1.0 In-Reply-To: <10148462.1187272170701.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12520407 ] Craig Russell commented on OPENJPA-317: --------------------------------------- I like the separation proposed here. Just a few comments. 1. In FetchPlanImpl, you have: + public boolean isEnlistInQueryResultCache() { + return _fetch.getEnlistInQueryCache(); Why shouldn't both methods have the same signature? 2. Since OpenJPAEntityManagerSPI extends OpenJPAEntityManager, any class that implements OpenJPAEntityManagerSPI doesn't also need to implement OpenJPAEntityManager. 3. OpenJPAEntityManagerFactory used to extend Closeable. It might be useful for it to continue to extend Closeable, as the only method in Closeable is close(). 4. I think that these methods should be considered to be part of OpenJPAEntityManagerFactory and not SPI, since they don't depend on internal state or internal classes: + public void addLifecycleListener(Object listener, Class... classes); + public void removeLifecycleListener (Object listener); > API formalization pre-1.0 > ------------------------- > > Key: OPENJPA-317 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-317 > Project: OpenJPA > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: jpa > Affects Versions: 0.9.0, 0.9.6, 0.9.7 > Reporter: Patrick Linskey > Fix For: 1.0.0 > > Attachments: OPENJPA-317.patch > > > This issue tracks the effort to formalize and optimize our API prior to the 1.0 release. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.