RE: [jbosscache-dev] Consistent factory method
Ic. So what do other people prefer, if we can do it either way?
-----Original Message-----
From: Manik Surtani [mailto:msurtani@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:17 PM
To: Ben Wang
Cc: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [jbosscache-dev] Consistent factory method
Nothing more than the factory is a simple class. If user code wants to wrap it in a
singleton and create factory methods in the wrapper, it is up to them. Just keeping
things simple.
--
Manik Surtani
Lead, JBoss Cache
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Email: msurtani(a)redhat.com
Telephone: +44 7786 702 706
MSN: manik(a)surtani.org
Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani
On 26 Oct 2006, at 10:12, Ben Wang wrote:
Manik,
This is a minor issue raised by Brian when he is constructing the bean
file for AS5. Currently, we have slight way of creating a cache
instance from the factory method.
In Cache, we do:
CacheFactory factory = new DefaultCacheFactory();
CacheSPI tree = (CacheSPI) factory.createCache(c, false);
While in PojoCache, we do:
cache_ = PojoCacheFactory.createInstance(configFile, false);
Nothing wrong with both approaches but maybe we should be consistent
in both cache instances. And I don't mind to switch if needed. For me,
the reason that I did it in the first place is I don't forsee a
pluggable cache instance for PojoCache. And if needed, another Factory
can be used as well.
I thought originally with your approach, there is more control over
the lifecycle methods. But now it is probably not needed there. Any
other reason to stick with your approach?
Thanks,
-Ben
_______________________________________________
jbosscache-dev mailing list
jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev