In general I'm not in favor of including architectural details in the naming of code artifacts. There are some cases where it makes complete sense (i.e. JNDIBackedConfig), but they should usually sit behind an interface. One of the benefits of JPA in general is that you can separate the persistence mapping from the Java implementation, and we would be taking a step back from that separation. 

In the future if we decide to start mapping these classes as JAXB objects, and/or Jackson objects, we wouldn't want to have to rename all of them to keep up with the convention.

We could move them into a 'entity' package if that helps (not for this pull request).