db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Armin Waibel <arm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ProxyHelper -- should it remain static?
Date Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:04:39 GMT


Thomas Dudziak wrote:
>>what do think is the best way to get rid of the static QueryFactory
>>methods ? these methods are used in all of our testcases and also by the
>>users of ojb.
>>
>>myOjb.getQueryFactory().newQuery(...) would be the right thing, but i
>>think we can't break all the user's code :(
> 
> 
> Mhmm, don't know, do the query objects need a OJB, PC or PB object for
> creation ? If not, then the static methods could remain in place,
> could they not ?

agree, but I think the problem will be the new pluggable Query, 
QueryByCriteria,... interfaces. If this is true, I would prefer a method 
in main class OJB#getQueryFactory() to let OJB instantitate/configurate 
an QueryFactory instance to allow user extensions of QueryXXX classes. 
The static QueryFactory should be deprecated and still remain to be 
backward compatible (this class can't be used with extented Query classes).

regards,
Armin


> If yes, then you're right, though we should leave the static methods
> in place nonetheless, but they only delegate to the OJB object that
> can be retrieved at the PBF (which is not static but comes from a
> ThreadLocal), and they should be properly deprecated.
> 
> WDYT ?
> Tom
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

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


Mime
View raw message