Carsten Ziegeler wrote > 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. > Ok to move this forward, let's go with a close() method :)
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
