Users will just expect we do whatever they do with this class:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/sql/Driver.html
Why don't we just do what people have been doing with JDBC Driver for 10+ years.
jdbc.Driver driver = Class.forInstance("class_name").newInstance(); //
whatever the API here
driver.getConnectionFactory();
or maybe we could do something new, and have this new class
substituting the connection factory?
The request I got is just to be able to make a standard way for admin
tools. I'm just suggesting we copy the way JDBC is doing because
that's what users would expect
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> No, IMHO the constructor would be private or at most protected.
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure, why Validation has a public constructor. Maybe
> it's required by some DI frameworks (I know especially Spring often does;-)
> so does the CDI class, but all such classes in JSR 354 like
> javax.money.MonetaryAmounts have a private constructor and they're final. I
> know, at least the CDI class is abstract and some implementations extend it.
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I meant something instantiating it...
>>
>> but really I'm just proposing to do whatever javax.sql is doing. I
>> remember you would get an instance of the driver and you would call
>> the method on that instance.
>>
>> So you would need an empty constructor.
>>
>> The advantage I see is for people writing generic tools. It's actually
>> the role of the guy who asked me about this.. he's writing tooling to
>> configure ConnectionFactories for external VMs on a generic faction.
>> having this standardized would help those kind of tools
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 17/03/2015 12:21, Clebert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I didn't propose a static method. I just proposed a factory similar to
>> >> what Jdbc uses. You use the class loader to
>> >> load the class and use it non statically. Just like Jdbc.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You proposed
>> >
>> >>>> JMSDriver dirver = Class.forName("MyProvider");
>> >>>> ConnectionFactory factory =
>> >>>> driver.newConnectionFactory(connectionString
>> >>>> / URI / something we all agree upon);
>> >
>> >
>> > which means newConnectionFactory has to be a static method.
>> >
>> > All the methods on javax.sql.DriverManager are static.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I'd like to understand why we
>> > need
>> > to introduce another level of provider-specific factory. The main
>> > benefit I
>> > can see is that allows the provider to choose the connection factory
>> > implementation class depending on the specified properties. Is that a
>> > requirement?
>> >
>> > Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com