I agree. There is no need to be so verbose, and the concept of a persistence unit was and is fully embodied by JDO's PersistenceManagerFactory. The only new concept, IMHO, is to name it, and "name" is sufficient to capture this. Can you enter a JIRA for this and I'll make a patch?
----- Original Message ---- From: Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: JDO Expert Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Apache JDO project <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 5:46:19 PM Subject: Rename property PersistenceUnitName to Name It seems that we added PersistenceUnitName to the PersistenceManagerFactory before completely understanding the usage, which primarily is to assign a name when configuring the PMF via jdoconfig. I now believe that the "PersistenceUnit" part of the property name is distracting, and the real property name should be simply "Name". That is, PersistenceManagerFactories can have a Name property. The javadoc and other documentation can call out that this name is the same as the PersistenceUnit name in JPA, but I don't think that there is value in calling it PersistenceUnitName. The implication is a change in the PersistenceManagerFactory API and the jdoconfig xsd. Any comments? Craig Craig 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!
