On Sunday 30 November 2003 17:45, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Both Builder and Factory are completely type neutral.
I disagree. It can't make coffee cups, motorbikes or potato chips. > This is > specifically to allow the management of factories by a bootstrapping > system that does not know about a specific application. More > importantly, the generic builder does not have application specific > classes in its classpath. So is it ApplicationBuilder? ObjectBuilder? ArtifactBuilder? BootstrapBuilder? ImplementationFactory? (Sorry for not looking into the details yet. Just dislike too generic names, as Factory, Builder, Entity, which all exist in all frameworks, which makes stuff harder to read.) <snip content="explaination" /> > How does that sound? "Type" is irrelevant to this. No matter what, the Builder/Factory has some form of context/scope to which it belongs, and I am seeking to minimize the number of standard names, which just makes it so harder to understand, especially if they overlap with other frameworks. The fact that I can't derive the scope/context is IMHO already a weakness. Q: Is it used to instantiate Avalon components? Q: Is it used to instantiate non-Avalon components? Q: Is it used to instantiate all implementations that has a declared interface? Q: Is it used to instantiate all objects? Q: Does it replace keyword "new"? Maybe you think this is trivial matters, but it is about improving readability and ease of understanding. Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
