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: manik(a)jboss.org
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