commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <GGreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [lang] Generic object factories
Date Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:10:12 GMT
Unless [lang] would use it internally all over the place. Is there a case for that? How is
the interface useful without parameters?

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 15:55
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] Generic object factories
> 
> Once upon a time, there was a commons sandbox project that held all
> sorts of small interfaces just like this one. It was called commons-
> pattern.
> 
> It didn't suceed, because these interfaces really need to be provided
> by
> the JDK and implemented by all the JDK classes to be successful. Beyond
> that, it turned out to be better to have domain specific interfaces.
> 
> Thus, I would recommend stronlgy against having this in [lang]. Today,
> [functor] and [collections] are the right places for this in commons -
> [lang] doesn't have the necessary domain to back it up.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> Oliver Heger wrote:
> > With Java 1.5 it is possible to define a generic interface for
> creating
> > an object:
> >
> > public interface ObjectFactory<T> {
> >     T create();
> > }
> >
> > This is a proposal to add such an interface to [lang] 3.0 with a
> couple
> > of default implementations, e.g.
> > - a ConstantObjectFactory returning always the same constant object,
> > - a ReflectionObjectFactory which creates new instances of a given
> class
> > using reflection
> >
> > Some Initializer classes in the concurrent package also deal with the
> > creation of objects. They could implement this interface, too.
> >
> > Client classes that use this interface to create dependent objects
> would
> > be pretty flexible. By specifying concrete factory implementations it
> is
> > easy to configure the concrete objects they use and how they are
> created
> > as well.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> > Oliver
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message