I don't feel super strongly... but I tend to lean towards less is more.
If all you need for the time being is the Id concept, do that. Throw in
a quick documentation note about what exactly that property is... and
then if people need to use just the p-name part of it, they can run with
handy ole java.lang.String. If there's demand for it (via the mailing
list or whatever)... then it can be added....
Nice work on breaking out the word 'somesuch'... I'm gonna have to steal
that...
--Bryan
Patrick Linskey wrote:
So I'm having a bit of a hard time with this property setting.
In many environments, it makes a lot of sense to line up the
openjpa.PersistenceUnitName property with the setting in the persistence.xml
file. However, in an appserver, that name might not be unique. We (BEA)
sometimes need to be able to get the "fully-qualified" persistence unit
name, which is probably most closely defined in a Java EE environment as
application-name.module-name.persistence-unit-name or somesuch.
But obviously, if I create a property called openjpa.PersistenceUnitName,
people would (understandably) assume that the property should contain just
persistence-unit-name, and not the fully-qualified beast. That's why I was
thinking along the terms of 'Id' instead of 'PersistenceUnitName'.
Do others agree that these concepts are not quite the same? If so, should I
create a property for each (since PersistenceUnitName might be useful), or
should I just create the ID-related one, since that's all I really need
right now?
-Patrick
