Alexei Zakharov wrote: > I don't see many reasons to couple all persistence delegates into a > single class. IMO "one class to one persistence delegate" model is > obvious and easy to understand.
Yes, it is. Looking at the method DefaultPersistenceDelegate#createDefaultNameForPersistenceDelegateClass there is a simple 1:1 mapping from type to delegate. > AFAIU RI implements its persistence delegates in this way. I really don't care about that! > BTW what do you mean by code duplication here? > The behavior of instantiate() method is unique to each PD and all that > we can do is to create a single class with a big big switch that > includes the code from all our PDs. Do we really want this? IMHO it is > not an Object-Oriented way. I'm assuming that Spark is not suggesting combining *all* the persistence delegates, just those for the primitive types. But still, I'd also be interested to hear how they would be combined. Regards, Tim
