[hibernate-issues] [Hibernate-JIRA] Created: (HSEARCH-855) Classes extending BackendQueueProcessor are badly named XYZBackendQueueProcessorFactory

[Hardy Ferentschik (JIRA)]

Classes extending BackendQueueProcessor are badly named XYZBackendQueueProcessorFactory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: HSEARCH-855
                 URL: http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-855
             Project: Hibernate Search
          Issue Type: Improvement
          Components: documentation, engine
            Reporter: Hardy Ferentschik
             Fix For: 4.0.0.Alpha2


See GitHub commit note - https://github.com/Sanne/hibernate-search/commit/44e50d4a8234fd3e96f0ae38da94d3df898ab1a5#hibernate-search/src/main/java/org/hibernate/search/backend/impl/lucene/LuceneBackendQueueProcessorFactory.java-P19

{quote}
Haven't really looked at this code for some time, so I have a little bit of a beginner mind. Why is this thing called 'Factory'. Either the class or the interface is not named correctly. Should the interface maybe be BackendQueueProcessorFactory? We have a whole bunch of XYZBackendQueueProcessor, but they are now Runnables. Looking at BackendQueueProcessor I would say this name is correct, but the implementing classes should drop the 'Factory'. The current XYZBackendQueueProcessor classes could become XYZBackendQueueProcessorTask. WDYT? 
{quote}

{quote}
right, that's a long standing issue, I agree with that and actually it confuses me often. Very legacy names, I didn't really want at this point to rename everything so that - assuming you all knew this code a bit - recognizing old friends would have been easier. I've changed so much already.

So, with the old design this was a Runnable Factory, as it returned Runnable instances, but now it still creates and uses Runnables, but this isn't exposed anymore so I like the interface name as it does a good job in representing the Processor.
WDYT of changing the classname of all *ProcessorFactory to *Processor ? (i.e. this affects JMS, JGroups, etc...)
Mind you, this affects end users using FQC names so if you agree in doing it (I'm all for it) I think we should track it both on JIRA and on the migration guide. 
{quote}

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira