Hi Simone 2013/4/1 Simone Giacomelli <[email protected]>: > Hi Christopher, Lukas, guys, > >>Why confuse users with this artificial distinction (static vs contextual) >> between Factory and Executor? [...] > > I agree. It confuses me too.
Yes, this point has been well received. >> 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. In my view, a name like >> JOOQFactory [...] > > Here, my opinion is different: for me one or another is quite ok. Java > packages are also for this purpose. > If I look how many "Configurations" class I have in the class path: at least > 14 (derby,javax.security,testng,jooq,spring,etc...) Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to bring it up again on this thread here: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/jooq-user/U4i33PL_-8Y > I like how Eclipse Jetty name the web server component class: "Server" :) > In opposition to tomcat where the web server is actually called "Tomcat". It > is ok. too. Yes, Server is quite ambiguous among libraries, as well. "Tomcat" would be an argument in favour of renaming the Factory to "JOOQ" :-) 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.
