> Another possibility (in conjonction with he fact that we might want to have > schema aware entries) is to use a factory to build entries, instead of > having a constructor.
I don't know if the factory is really required here cause what I think of is just a *Entry*. It will be aware of schema if SchemaManager is injected else not (i.e equivalent to DefaultClientEntry) > > If we have to keep the Interface, what would be the name for the class ? > EntryImpl ? DefaultEntry? to me EntryImpl sounds good, cause DefaultEntry gives an impression that there exists another implementation. Kiran Ayyagari
