> I would split that as much as possible. For example, if the static method > "with(Configuration cfg)" is going to be mixed with other static methods > like max/min/nvl or other static DSL methods, then I would suggest > splitting that. >
I am not sure I follow. Do you go further than what I suggested (bridging between different factories) and keeping them completely separate? Then users would have to use multiple imports. import org.jooq.JooqDsl.*; import org.jooq.JooqRenderingDsl.*; I don't know whether this is good or bad. The good side is that things are separate and that other kinds of Dsl can be added instead of having everything be aggregated to Factory. The bad side is that you have different imports. Maybe then there should be a tradeoff class: org.jooq.JooqDslAll.* which is a facade to all those little *Dsl classes. This would work if the API creator makes sure that methods in one *Dsl class does not collide with the methods of another *Dsl class and every method added to any *Dsl class gets added to JooqDslAll. The picky ones would choose the individual imports, the lazy one would just include the whole API, while internally having a clear separation. -Christopher -- 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.
