Le Vendredi 7 Juillet 2006 16:14, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany a 
écrit :
> I see the potential for sharing code here, but I'm not sure whether a
> shared "first-level" driver lib would be the way to go. Reason is that
> some differences in the different implementations can only be
> implemented on code level, /me thinks.
>
> That is, the driver differ, for instance, in their acceptsURL behaviour:
> Every driver decides the acceptance depending on a fixed URL pattern.
> This could for instance be put into the configuration (so we could
> register some "KAB driver" which states its URL pattern sdbc:kaddress:*
> in the configuration, and the generic driver finds configuration
> information (along with the sdbc:mozab:* and sdbc:evoab:*), and thus
> returns |true| in acceptsURL.
>
> On the other hand there is code other than just "load the secondary lib,
> if this fails, throw a generic error" in the different drivers. This
> code would need to be a parameter of the "generic" driver, depending on
> which connection type it should actually create. This boils down to: You
> still need a small piece of code from your primary lib, which is
> different for different drivers.
>
> Or I missed something in your suggestion :)

My suggestion is just to merge all "primary" libs into one single lib. Not 
sharing, merging. Not a factorization, rather an addition.

This primary lib would have little to do with a driver. It would rather be a 
"driver loader".

And yes, you are right, it would not only contain generic code, but also 
driver-specific code. AcceptUrl() could go there, for each driver.

The primary lib would basically be "for each driver, check the environment to 
determine whether I should load the driver. In a driver-specific way.".


Just ideas, you know... They might be useless.


-- 
- Maman, quel est le cri de la fourmi ?
- La fourmi croonde, mon chéri.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to