RE: openjpa.Id property
I ended up creating an Id property and eventually moving it to the Configuration level, since it seems like something that is usable outside the context of persistence in particular. I'll immediately be using it in LogFactoryImpl to implement something we talked about a while back re: diagnostic context names. -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. > -Original Message- > From: Bryan Noll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:31 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: openjpa.Id property > > When I see 'AbsoluteUnitName'... I immediately think... "I don't know > what that means" > > I guess I'd prefer to stick with terminology that I'm more > familiar with > (and I'm assuming users would be more familiar with it too). > > Again though... if you feel strongly about this... I'll defer... it's > just a property name > > Craig L Russell wrote: > > So does it make sense to consider how Java has handled a similar > > concept: > > > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/io/File.html#getA > bsolutePath() > > > > > > 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 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 > >> > >> --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. > >> > >>> -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 > &
Re: openjpa.Id property
When I see 'AbsoluteUnitName'... I immediately think... "I don't know what that means" I guess I'd prefer to stick with terminology that I'm more familiar with (and I'm assuming users would be more familiar with it too). Again though... if you feel strongly about this... I'll defer... it's just a property name Craig L Russell wrote: So does it make sense to consider how Java has handled a similar concept: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/io/File.html#getAbsolutePath() 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 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 --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. -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 months ago, it would be useful if the logging subsystem automatically wrote the persistence unit'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 the property? 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 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! 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!
Re: openjpa.Id property
So does it make sense to consider how Java has handled a similar concept: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/io/ File.html#getAbsolutePath() 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 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 -- 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. -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 months ago, it would be useful if the logging subsystem automatically wrote the persistence unit'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 the property? 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 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! 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
Re: openjpa.Id property
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 +1 ___ 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.
Re: openjpa.Id property
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
RE: openjpa.Id property
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 -- 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. > -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 months > ago, it would > > be useful if the logging subsystem automatically wrote the > persistence > > unit'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 the > property? > > 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 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
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 months ago, it would be useful if the logging subsystem automatically wrote the persistence unit'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 the property? 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 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
openjpa.Id property
Hi, It's useful in a number of places to get an identifier for a particular Configuration. For example, as we discussed a few months ago, it would be useful if the logging subsystem automatically wrote the persistence unit'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 the property? 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.
