On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Darrell DeBoer wrote:
> I don't think that db-specific subclasses is the right design for handling
> different databases.
I use the name to stress (to myself) that it would be all right to use
whathever non-standard SQL statements available in MySQL (it turned out
that for the task at hand, there ain't any :-). Besides, I just wanted to
have class names that don't collide with the existing JDBC* classes in
James.
>I reckon that database-specific implementations would be
> better built using a containment relationship with a database-specific
> "plugin" (ie bridge pattern). Even better if we can stick to using meta-data
> (ie config) for all database-specific needs.
I was talking about that in my previous postings; using a superclass of
JDBCMailRepository, which contains nothing but SQL statement definitions.
But I think, yes, it'd be better to use meta-data files.
> The use of inheritance in this
> case is not the best design, in my opinion.
> (I'm assuming that the classes named above follow on from a previous email
> which described the design in more detail)
Well, I didn't use inheritance; it was a complete rewrite.
So I think, I didn't follow one of the good practices in OOP; ie:
reusability. :-) But it's OK, I have learned quite a lot. (That's the
greatest thing about open-source, I believe; you don't just implement
others' works, but you also learning something along the way.)
Oki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
