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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
