Hello, It's indeed not what I'd expect a "Factory" to be at first glance but honestly it have never been a big problem. As for google searches, it's a very generic word that could return anything but adding "jooq" next to it in the search bar should be enough to get decent results. Congratulations btw for choosing that name, it may sound somewhat dumb to some people but at least it generates very little noise on google, it's not like "Go, Play, or D"
I would not be against a different name but I can't find anything that meets your requirements. Considering the words SQL and Builder are out of the deal, there is not much left. I'd say something with DSL in it perhaps QueryDsl? But again, that's because you're asking... Best Le mardi 2 avril 2013 21:27:32 UTC+2, Lukas Eder a écrit : > > Dear group, > > It has been brought to my attention that using "Factory" as a name for > the jOOQ DSL entry point might not be the optimal choice. You will > find details about this request in this thread here [1]. > > I understand the arguments brought up by Christopher Deckers, which are > mainly: > > 1. The name is too generic to be linked to jOOQ > 2. The name is too generic to be used easily in auto imports, code > navigation, Google searches > > I personally did not agree with the above because of > > 1. The class is in a package, which clearly links it to jOOQ > 2. The class is in a package, which clearly links it to jOOQ > (except for auto imports) > > But I may not suffer from the same pain as you, the users. Also I'm > curious about the potential of finding a better name. > > So please, if you feel either way (pro / contra "Factory"), bring up > your arguments in favour / against the current name. If you're against > it, please also bring up a compelling alternative. By "compelling", I > don't mean things like "Builder", "SQL", "API", but something that > clearly communicates the intent of the "Factory", which are two > things: > > - Being the single point of entry for the jOOQ DSL > - Being the single "factory" for constructing jOOQ QueryParts, > functions, bind values, etc. > > As of jOOQ 3.0, the Factory is no longer: > > - An entity holding "contextual" information about JDBC Connections, > DataSources, Settings, SQLDialect. This information has been moved > outside of the Factory in jOOQ 3.0 and is off-topic for this > brainstorming. > > More info about the Factory can be found here [2] and here [3] > > Let's try to get to a conclusion until Sunday, April 7. > > Cheers > Lukas > > [1]: > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/jooq-user/uxcYEC7IoDM > [2]: http://www.jooq.org/javadoc/latest/org/jooq/impl/Factory.html > [3]: http://www.jooq.org/doc/3.0/manual/sql-building/factory > -- 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.
