commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [lang] Generic object factories
Date Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:03:19 GMT
True enough that [functor] already contains *Function interfaces that  
meet these requirements.

-Matt

On Dec 26, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> 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
>


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


Mime
View raw message