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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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 > > -- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
