Hi Miran,
My personal opinion is to prefer the more defensive approach instead of
introducing a new abstract method, even though it would be more consistent with
other factories to add the new abstract method. The spec doesn’t require _all_
factories to delegate to SAAJMetaFactory as I understand.
Also the current API docs on SAAJMetaFactory explicitly refer only to the 2
factories mentioned.
Thanks,
Deva
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 4:26 AM, Miroslav Kos <miroslav....@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 30/09/15 17:31, Miroslav Kos wrote:
>> On 30/09/15 16:50, Georgiy Rakov wrote:
>>> 2. This is not related to ServiceLoader feature, but anyway -
>>> SAAJMetaFactory.java:
>>> 30 * SAAJ API. All of the {@code newInstance} methods defined on
>>> factories in
>>> 31 * SAAJ 1.3 defer to instances of this class to do the actual object
>>> creation.
>>> Namely it says that all the newInstance methods defined on factories
>>> delegate factory creation to SAAJMetaFactory instances, but this seems to
>>> be not exactly true because SOAPConnectionFactory is not created by
>>> SAAJMetaFactory instance.
>> Yes, good catch. To fix it, it would be good to add a new abstract method
>> public abstract SOAPConnectionFactory newSOAPConnectionFactory()
>> throws SOAPException, UnsupportedOperationException
>>
>> Would you agree, Deva, Chen? There is a problem with backwards compatibility
>> here ... More defensive would be to name the two factories instead of saying
>> "all"?
> Any opinion on this, anybody?
>
> Thanks
> Miran
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Miran
>>
>> Btw. I sent this RFR initially to wrong mailing lists, would you check when
>> answering that it's to Core-Libs-Dev
>> <mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net><core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
>> <mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> ?
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Georgiy.
>>>
>>
>
