10:40 a.m.
Currently we utilize 3 different ServiceRegistry types within Hibernate
and I wanted to hopefully get some consensus on their names.
1) org.hibernate.service.internal.BootstrapServiceRegistryImpl. It
contains services that have to be known up front. Currently this is
limited to ClassLoaderService and IntegratorService. Personally I think
this one is already perfectly named per its intent/purpose.
2) org.hibernate.service.internal.BasicServiceRegistryImpl. The naming
of this one has caused some confusion for at least one person I know.
And I agree that the naming here is not best. Some other names proposed
have been "standard service registry" or "main service registry".
This
is the main registry in that it holds most of the services. It has the
bootstrap registry as its parent, and the
SessionFactoryServiceRegistryImpl uses this as its parent.
3) org.hibernate.service.internal.SessionFactoryServiceRegistryImpl.
This is responsible for holding services that need access to the
SessionFactory during their init. Again, I think this is a good name
for its function, but am open to other suggestions. BTW, currently this
only includes the event listener service though I see this expanding a
little as we finish up the metamodel changes to include a few more services.
A related discussion, if we decided to rename any of these, is whether
that renaming warrants another CR release.
--
steve(a)hibernate.org
http://hibernate.org
11:09 a.m.
For 2,
The hard part is to understand when a given registry is used and for what purpose.
In a way Basic, Main, Core, Generic (the alternate names I can think of) are not telling
very much. The Basic registry holds services that are used at most stages of Hibernate.
Would Global make any sense?
Second best thing would be to Javadoc them a bit more to solve the problem.
As far as the additional CR, That's a good question. I have no opinion. I'd say it
depends if you have time :)
Emmanuel
On 26 sept. 2011, at 17:40, Steve Ebersole wrote:
Currently we utilize 3 different ServiceRegistry types within
Hibernate
and I wanted to hopefully get some consensus on their names.
1) org.hibernate.service.internal.BootstrapServiceRegistryImpl. It
contains services that have to be known up front. Currently this is
limited to ClassLoaderService and IntegratorService. Personally I think
this one is already perfectly named per its intent/purpose.
2) org.hibernate.service.internal.BasicServiceRegistryImpl. The naming
of this one has caused some confusion for at least one person I know.
And I agree that the naming here is not best. Some other names proposed
have been "standard service registry" or "main service registry".
This
is the main registry in that it holds most of the services. It has the
bootstrap registry as its parent, and the
SessionFactoryServiceRegistryImpl uses this as its parent.
3) org.hibernate.service.internal.SessionFactoryServiceRegistryImpl.
This is responsible for holding services that need access to the
SessionFactory during their init. Again, I think this is a good name
for its function, but am open to other suggestions. BTW, currently this
only includes the event listener service though I see this expanding a
little as we finish up the metamodel changes to include a few more services.
A related discussion, if we decided to rename any of these, is whether
that renaming warrants another CR release.
--
steve(a)hibernate.org
http://hibernate.org
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
11:58 a.m.
On Mon 26 Sep 2011 11:09:56 AM CDT, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
For 2,
The hard part is to understand when a given registry is used and for what purpose.
Not sure I understand what you mean here. Used in what way?
For lookups? Well the lookups are hierarchical. Thats not an issue at
all imho.
In terms of constructing? I just described when each is used. And
certainly "bootstrap" leaves little interpretation imho. And honestly,
the 3rd one is really an implementation detail that users should never
see. Not sure what other name is more appropriate for the
SessionFactoryServiceRegistryImpl one anyway;
SessionFactoryAwareServiceRegistryImpl? So really we have this
"bootstrap" registry and the "other" one to name properly. And as
for
the actual constructing, I think the API does a decent job of directing
that. A org.hibernate.service.ServiceRegistryBuilder is the thing
users utilize to build these registries. There are 2 forms of
constructing said builder: one is no arg and the other accepts a
BootstrapServiceRegistryImpl.
But if I am simply being "defensive" of my design, NOW is the time to
address any real shortcomings. I just don't see that particular issue.
I do see the names as confusing, particularly the "basic" one.
In a way Basic, Main, Core, Generic (the alternate names I can think
of) are not telling very much. The Basic registry holds services that are used at most
stages of Hibernate. Would Global make any sense?
Second best thing would be to Javadoc them a bit more to solve the problem.
I agree those terms do not shed much light on its function. But
really, what is its function? It is the registry that holds the
main/standard set of Hibernate services. Really the non-special
services if you look at it from the perspective that the other 2
registries are special purpose.
Global is completely inappropriate imo. I think it sets the wrong
impression. Global in what way? Especially when you consider that
Hibernate historically used the term "global" to discuss
class-loader-static configuration settings. Thats definitely not the
case here.
As far as the additional CR, That's a good question. I have no
opinion. I'd say it depends if you have time :)
I guess it depends whether the user-facing API is affected which it
probably would be if we renamed one/more of these. I'd rather get it
right for 4.0 versus 4.x
--
steve(a)hibernate.org
http://hibernate.org
4841
days inactive
4841
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Emmanuel Bernard -
Steve Ebersole