Felix Meschberger wrote > Hi, > > On 03.03.2010 20:24, Carsten Ziegeler (JIRA) wrote: >> Rethinking this, I think we should rather add a dispose method >> to the factory than a close method to the resource resolver itself. >> This makes the lifecycle a little bit more obvious and prevents >> clients from calling the close method. Only the code who created >> the resource resolver has the factory and can therefore dispose >> the resource resolver > > While you may be right from a "safety" POV, from a "custom-use" POV > having the close method is proably better: > > * JCR has a Session.logout() method; where the Repository is > the factory > * JDBC Connections have a Connection.close() method; where the > DataSource is the factory > * Declarative Services ComponentInstance has a dispose() method; > where the ComponentFactory is the factory > > Ok, have the dispose method on the factory is more symmetric (creation > and disposal in the same location); but it is probably more natural to > be able to just close/dispose off the ResourceResolver directly. > > Thus, I would prefer to have a close() method on the ResourceResolver > interface. > Yes, I think haven the dispose method in the factory has another advantage: we don't have to change (extend) the resource resolver interface.
I would prefer having dispose on the factory for the explained reasons, but we can go with a close() method on the resolver as well. It's not a big deal. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
