Kees Jongenburger wrote: > > > 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. > And why would something like this belong somewhere in a baseclass?
I don't really understand what you ask. I followed your suggestion, I only remarked that 'Factory' would be a bit of a misleading name here, because currently the 'getCache' function doesn't factory anything. [ .. static modifiers...]. > That of course is very confusing. not only when you extend a class. > but even more > in the factory code. I'm not sure if that is very confusing. Cache is quite a simple thing, with only a few methods and even fewer static methods. Caches are instantiated with a simple 'new', and can then staticly be 'registered', which makes them configured by 'caches.xml'. Some cache-extensions are quite complicated, but some others are extremely simple. I think is more or less a matter of taste wheter you implement static functionality as static methods or by means of singleton 'factories' or 'managers' or so. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US
