Re: FetchGroup implementation

[Craig L Russell]

Hi Kevin,

On Aug 28, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:

Craig,
Comments below...

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >wrote:

On Aug 27, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

The JDO expert group has adopted a user-level API for configuring

FetchGroups at runtime. There is a factory for FetchGroup in the
PersistenceManager and PersistenceManagerFactory, corresponding to
EntityManager and EntityManagerFactory.


before I start.


the FetchPlan interface.


for FetchGroup?

I'd like to implement this concept for OpenJPA, and have a few questions Currently there is an Annotation org.apache.openjpa.persistence.FetchGroup that allows an annotation to be defined for a class or field. There are also FetchPlan.java and FetchPlanImpl.java in that same package. The FetchPlan is the interface (not standard) and the FetchPlanImpl is the implementation for So if we want to have an interface representing the FetchGroup how do we avoid the name conflict between the annotation name and the interface name

same package as interfaces and implementations?


we found useful in FetchGroup.

What if we moved all the annotations currently in

the current annotation definitions in org.apache.openjpa.persistence?

This name conflict is making me crazy. Why did we put annotations into the FetchPlan is an interface but it might also be an annotation in future, along with FetchPlans. These annotations would allow you to define named fetch plans in annotations that could be used for static definition of fetch plans for queries, etc. without needing an API. Sort of the inverse of what org.apache.openjpa.persistence to org.apache.openjpa.annotations, deprecate

moving and deprecating the current annotations would be a major
compatibility issue as we move forward.  Besides the native OpenJPA

would be disruptive.


that, I'm not thrilled with.

Although I can understand the frustration with the current organization, applications, we have many other packagers of OpenJPA (IBM, BEA, others?) that have documented the use of OpenJPA annotations. Changing these now Since the use of the annotation would be more common than the interface, I would prefer to separate out the interfaces into a new directory. But, even

I really hate all of these options:



deprecating and breaking existing applications

keeping both interfaces and annotations in the same place





Craig

I understand and thought that throwing out a proposal would stimulate some thought. creating a new directory in which we put only FetchGroup (the interface) and FetchGroupImpl (the implementation of the interface) calling FetchGroup something entirely different, although calling it OpenJPAFetchGroup, or JDOFetchGroup might not be a bad idea Of all the unattractive options, I'd probably vote for the latter (lattest?) (JDOFetchGroup).

Kevin

Craig

Craig

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Craig L Russell

Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo

408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature