OK, in that case, I'll switch things back to being Mode as appropriate. -Patrick
On 8/20/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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 > > > -- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
