Here are two quickly made up thoughts (Google shows no one is using them at the moment in open source)
"Persius" sounds a little like persistence, and is a good old name I was thinking "North Sea" - Thinking association with platform (as in oil platform) but that is a stretch so how about a Synonym "Dais" Okay bring on the storm of "Dumb Idea" emails.... Phill -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 4, 2007 4:00 PM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation While we're on the topic, do you have any compelling new name ideas? Clearly, if we had a new name handy, it could be advantageous to create that TLP and then an OpenJPA subproject from the start. I don't think that we should hold up the graduation for this, but it does seem like the thing that's easier to do all at once. -Patrick On 5/4/07, Phill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you on the name change and the timing around it. My > comments are mainly directed towards holding a non-representative name > if other APIs are implemented. > > A decision that can be made later along with any necessary > re-packaging needs > > Sincerely, > Phill > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: May 4, 2007 3:35 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation > > > I see a discontinuity in calling the project OpenJPA if in reality > > the project implements JDO and so forth. > > I agree; there is a logical disconnection here. > > > If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API > > pluggable/selectable > > The engine is very well-separated from the API as things stand now, > and the API is 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. > > ... however, currently, the OpenJPA project only supports JPA > bindings. I'd like to see other bindings for OpenJPA, but as things > stand right now, things happen to line up nicely. > > > 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. > > This can actually be done today. The only distribution that the > OpenJPA community has published to date is a monolithic jar, but given > how the build process works today, it'd be fairly trivial to do something else. > > I don't think that we should change the name right now. We (the > OpenJPA > community) have built a name around the community, and there are > currently no plans that I know of to add new APIs on top of OpenJPA. I > think that we can always change the name of the underlying engine at a > later time with minimal disruption. > > If we do decide to change the name, I'd strongly suggest that we > create a TLP with some other more-flexible name, and then > simultaneously create a project within that TLP called 'OpenJPA', > which publishes a distribution that looks much like the current > incubating releases. Then, new API bindings could be started as sub-projects within that TLP, rather than actually creating separate projects. > > -Patrick > > On 5/4/07, Phill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > Patrick Linskey > 202 669 5907 > > -- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
