Without getting any nastier let me explain. I see a discontinuity in calling the project OpenJPA if in reality the project implements JDO and so forth. If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API pluggable/selectable and the project is planning on implementing other APIs then a name change seems reasonable as it would not be representative of what we are providing. If we are to go down this path then I would further suggest we separate the engine and implementing APIS into separate jars/packages as it is wasteful an potentially dangerous to package all implementations together.
That is all this little piece of the community has to say. Phill -----Original Message----- From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 4, 2007 2:50 PM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation On May 4, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Phill Moran wrote: > Would we then not have to change the overall name from JPA to > openPersistence or some such? That would suck. I see no reason we would "have to change" the name. It is a choice of the community. > Why not let another project lift out the engine and adapt JDO/SDO/ETC > and maybe we remerge the projects later. I would hate to see a fork. > Maybe this idea works if we can fully separate the API from the > persistence engine as it does not make sense to go into production > with several unused API being deployed. It is already separated. -dain
