Hi Joachim, 2013/4/2 Durchholz, Joachim <[email protected]>: >> I also personaly don't like names like "Factory", >> "Executor", etc. While I reckon they are short, >> they are too broad/generic and in a complex >> application do not immediately make the link to >> jOOQ. They also don't help auto imports, code >> navigation, Google searches (there are many >> generic classes with the same name), etc. > > +1 > > Choosing a nongeneric name also helps fight feature bloat in the class. > With a precise name, it's easy to decide whether a new function belongs to it > or not; with a generic name, adding a function that doesn't quite fit rings > no alarm bells.
That is true in general, although not for the "Factory". Its intent is clearly to provide an entry point to the jOOQ DSL and to allow for creating QueryParts. Two types of creation operations that deserve to be put into a "factory". I agree with you as far as the Executor is concerned. Note that the Executor is being reworked before jOOQ 3.0 is released. See the various ongoing discussions on the group related to this. > Coming up with a good class name can be hard and take much time though. > *looks at his own code...* I know. Factory seemed like a "good enough" fit for the job, so far. Feel free to provide suggestions in this thread here, though: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/jooq-user/U4i33PL_-8Y Cheers Lukas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
