Could we use some of the same terms, perhaps AbsoluteUnitName for the purpose you are proposing here, and not implement UnitName until someone asks for it?
In the non-managed environment, I assume application-name and module- name are empty so the absolute unit name would be the same as the unit name?
Craig On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:48 PM, 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 theopenjpa.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 asapplication-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 wasthinking 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 needright now? -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc.______________________________________________________________________ _ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return thisby email and then delete it.-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:50 PM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: openjpa.Id property Hi Patrick, I don't think there would be an issue with calling it unitName or persistenceUnitName, as in getUnitName() or getPersistenceUnitName(). It will be common for people to try to figure out what the Id property from a Configuration really means so the more help we give them the easier it will be to remember. openjpa.unitName openjpa.persistenceUnitName Maybe I'm missing something obvious... Craig On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:Hi, It's useful in a number of places to get an identifier for a particular Configuration. For example, as we discussed a few monthsago, it wouldbe useful if the logging subsystem automatically wrote thepersistenceunit's ID along with log messages if no such ID was specified in the log configuration. Any objections to such an addition? In a JPA environment, this would correspond to the persistence unit's unitName attribute. Any suggestions for a better name than openjpa.Id for theproperty?This would result in an OpenJPAConfiguration.getId() method call that returned a String. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc.______________________________________________________________ _________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
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!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
