Hi Lukas, I have a(nother?) silly question.
Quoting you: "While Factory is all static, Executor initialises objects with a Configuration. In fact, Executor and Factory share a lot of API, even if informally by convention. This leads to things like executor.fetch(Factory.select()) being the same as executor.select().fetch()". Why confuse users with this artificial distinction (static vs contextual) between Factory and Executor? Why not put all the static methods of Factory in the Executor class and get rid of Factory (and static import Executor)? Also, I don't think Executor is a good name. It is the starting point of creating a query and that should be obvious from the name. Moreover, the query that Executor allows to build will eventually be transformed to a String (getSQL()): it is not necessarily executed, it is more like a factory. I think the name "Factory" is way better than "Executor" (no matter whether you consider the context-aware methods or static ones, that I just suggested to merge in one single class). I also personaly don't like names like "Factory", "Executor", etc. While I reckon they are short, they are too broad/generic and in a complex application do not immediately make the link to jOOQ. They also don't help auto imports, code navigation, Google searches (there are many generic classes with the same name), etc. In my view, a name like JOOQFactory would be unambiguous: we would know what it creates just from the name and there would be no name collisions. Please let me know what you think! -Christopher -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
