Hi Guys,
Since we'd like to get rid of all the INSTANCE fields for SDO-96, I was
thinking that all the static getXXXHelper() methods in HelperProvider
should also go. Once we remove all this, I think we're not left with much
interesting content in HelperProvider, so I think that maybe we should
just deprecate the entire class HelperProvider, and replace it with a
clean new API. I've attached my first pass at this, class
SDOImplementation. I've deprecated HelperProvider, but made it a subclass
of SDOImplementation, for backward compatibility. Comments welcome.
Thanks,
Frank.
Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
01/13/2009 10:51 AM
To
cc
Subject
Re: AW: [sdo] New HelperProvider implementation
Hi Ron,
Thanks for looking at it. You're right that is is a partial resolution to
SDO-96. My thinking was that SDO-96 is one of the issues that we can
resolve in the virtual F2F, but I wanted to get some starting material for
discussion on the table before that. I think there are several aspects to
the issue that we'll want to discuss in detail.
One thing that I definitely had intended this class to do, but forgot, was
to allow more that one impl/service to be located. I've attached a
slightly modified version here.
Thanks,
Frank.
"Barack, Ron" <>
01/13/2009 10:01 AM
To
Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <>
cc
Subject
AW: [sdo] New HelperProvider implementation
Hi Frank,
I'm guessing that this is a partial resolution to SDO-96, is that right?
If not, what is the issue that is being addressed here.
I think holding the information in a file in meta-inf is OK, certainly an
improvement over what we have now, but in order to handle the
bootstrapping problem, I think we need some additional options. The
problem with having things in a file in meta-inf is that it doesn't really
change the situation about having only one SDO on the classpath, which the
user always gets, no matter what.
A lot of systems allow specifying the implementation class through the
API... InitialContext is a famous example of this. Others allow
configuration through system properties ("-D"s). I think SDO should allow
for all 3 configuration options, with the API given highest priority,
System properties second, the mechanism which you provide third, and the
fallback solution should be the fixed class name constant, as you have
given it.
Best Regards,
Ron
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Frank Budinsky [mailto:]
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Januar 2009 22:57
An:
Betreff: [sdo] New HelperProvider implementation
Hi Guys,
Attached is a proposed new implementation for class HelperProvider. The
advantages of this impl are:
1. It allows SDO implementations be registered as a Java Service Provider
-
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/jar/jar.html#Service%20Provider
2. Implementations should not need to replace this impl, but instead
simply plug in an subclass with necessary overrides.
3. I believe it's backward compatible with the previous version.
Please take a look at this impl, and let me know what you think. Maybe we
can discuss in tomorrow's call?
Thanks,
Frank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[attachment "HelperProvider.java" deleted by Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
