+1 on b without renaming. The fact that we're using Hibernate is an implementation detail, I think we should focus on the user contract: the end user is supposed to provide annotated entities. The user is free to use JPA annotations only in his mapping, so I think the name is not too bad. Still in practice the user is also free to use Hibernate specific annotations, but you have this same liberty when deploying a JPA based application in an pplication server: we don't strictly ban their usage, but that doesn't imply a name change either.

Sanne On 30 January 2014 10:29, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > as I am upgrading the JPA Store to work with Infinispan 6.0 SPI, there > have been several ideas/recommendations to use Hibernate-specific API > [1][2]. Currently, the code uses javax.persistence.* stuff only > (although it uses on hibernate implemenation). > > What do you think, should we: > a) stay with javax.persistence only > b) use hibernate API, if it offers better performance / gets rid of some > problems -> should we then rename the store to > infinispan-persistence-hibernate? Or is the Hibernate API an > implementation detail? > c) provide performant (hibernate) and standard implementation? > > My guess is b) (without renaming) as the main idea should be that we can > store JPA objects into relational DB > > Radim > > [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3953 > [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3954 > > -- > Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; > JBoss DataGrid QA > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev