> 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.
So now we would only have the "named PMF" specified via a PMF property to support and implementations wouldn't be required to support reading of JPA "persistence.xml" ? I thought the general idea was to have more read-across between JPA and JDO - ok having a "named PMF" does have its equivalent in JPA clearly, but users can't then just take an existing "persistence.xml" file and a <persistence-unit> contained within it and use it under JDO. Or maybe I misunderstand your proposal -- Andy (Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)
