jpa-hibernate vs. jpa

3 messages Options
Embed this post
Permalink
mraible

jpa-hibernate vs. jpa

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Does it make sense to name our JPA module jpa-hibernate instead of
just "jpa"? I think we should change it to "jpa" and only support the
implementation we feel is the best. If folks want to document how to
change from one implementation to another, that's cool. If we find
that OpenJPA is better than Hibernate JPA, we can switch. This is
similar to what we've done with JSF - we call it the generic name and
that allows us to switch implementations if we ever need to w/o
messing up anything too bad.

Thoughts?

If we're going to make the change, we should do it before 2.0 Final.

Thanks,

Matt

--
http://raibledesigns.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Trent Bartlem

Re: jpa-hibernate vs. jpa

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:23:48 -0600, Matt Raible wrote
> Does it make sense to name our JPA module jpa-hibernate instead of
> just "jpa"? I think we should change it to "jpa" and only support the
> implementation we feel is the best.

+1. Best practice is to code to interfaces rather than implementation; why not
name modules the same way?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

mraible

Re: jpa-hibernate vs. jpa

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Since RC1 will be deployed to maven's central repo - I'm going to make
this change tonight. Speak up now or forever hold your peace! ;-)

I've cc'd the user list to see if any users object.

Thanks,

Matt


On 9/3/07, Trent <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:23:48 -0600, Matt Raible wrote
> > Does it make sense to name our JPA module jpa-hibernate instead of
> > just "jpa"? I think we should change it to "jpa" and only support the
> > implementation we feel is the best.
>
> +1. Best practice is to code to interfaces rather than implementation; why
> not
> name modules the same way?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://raibledesigns.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]