Comparative examples normally helps for these kinds of proposals. If the benefit is minimal (at some level), then one should also question whether a change from the past is worth it, even if it would make sense when done from scratch in the first place.
Cheers Niclas On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:49 PM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J < [email protected]> wrote: > In past times we used TestContainerFactory to create 0..n TestContainer, > currently we only return one. So the factory is degraded to a way to > instantiate a TestContainer with a given Exam system. > > I would propose to drop the TestContainerFactory at all and instead only > have TestContainer SPIs where we decalre that these must have atleast one > public vissible constructor with argument ExamSystem or Option[]. That way > it would be more clear how to implement and access TestContainer and how > they get their Options... > > Any thoughts? > > -- > -- > ------------------ > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] > > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "OPS4J" 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/d/optout. > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java -- -- ------------------ OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" 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/d/optout.
