Hi, generally, I’m always in favor or removing redundant code! In this specific case, I think that it would be good to consider 2 options:
1) Have one rule that does both. 2) Have 2 rules that inherit from a common superclass and only specialize what’s needed for either collections or indexes. Without knowing the the code in much detail, I see a few advantages in option 2: a) Having 2 rules provides a little more flexibility. E.g. The optimizer could decide to not run the indexing rule if no indexes are available. We don't do such optimizations today, but we've been thinking about them and I'd like to keep moving into a direction that allows for them. b) The created classes/methods are probably smaller and easier to maintain. Cheers, Till On 14 Aug 2016, at 13:08, Menaka Jayawardena wrote: > Hello, > > With the approach of index centralization, both collection and indexing > functions have become very similar and shares most of the same code. > > It's very clear in above two classes that there's not much difference > instead of creating the proper DataSource object. > > So, I suppose that instead of two separate rules, this can be merged into > two sections of one common rule for index and collections. > > I'd like to have any feedback about this suggestion. > > Thank you very much > Menaka > > -- > *Menaka Madushanka Jayawardena* > Faculty of Engineering, <http://www.pdn.ac.lk/eng> > University of Peradeniyaya. > LinkedIn <http://lk.linkedin.com/in/menakajayawardena> > TP:- 071 885 1183/ 071 350 5470
