Kees Jongenburger wrote: > > How do you feel about it? > Very strong :) > > it's ceterainly an improvement. > > How about also removing the the caches creation to a factory > CacheFactory.getCache(string name);
The static getCache method does not create a Cache, it only give one back which was explicitely 'registered'. A better name would then perhaps be CacheManager. > The same goes for the Functions framework. NodeFunction now has > 2 functions it implements the Function interface and implements the > factory. The main reson is that it makes the code more obvious, people > implementing a function or cache don't want to know about the factory > code I think you dislike static functions. Personally, I found it more or less logical to implement such functions staticly, because they are common to all instances, and only few. Actually when you extend a cache you don't need to know about the static methods. You can simply remark the 'static' markers in the code :-) Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US
