On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > I see drawbacks to either approach. > > If the services can be shared across multiple SessionFactory instance then > they *must* be stateless (or the state must be designed to be shared) which > brings about portability/migration concerns. Additionally consider the case > of "configuring" services shared across multiple SessionFactory instances; > for example imagine changing the option to enable sql logging on the JDBC > Service. Of course maybe that is what the user wants/intends so its nice > from that perspective. > Yes but at least intuitively, I think the more simple Service contract (ie allowed to keep direct state) is preferable to the extra flexibility. > Really its a matter of the API for creating a SessionFactory. This came up > in the IRC meeting. Its actually difficult to enforce that a ServiceRegistry > only get used in a single SessionFactory. > True.
_______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
