-- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone. 

> On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:44 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I just bumped into one issue (actually two issues) after this:
> 
> 
> I - First HAWT-JMS is not working with trunk because the API is changed here. 
> I could change the API but now I have an issue that we can't commit the 
> change since there is no commit for this yet.
> 

I meant. There is no version for this yet. 
> II - Using this Factory on the interface makes it very tight to use any other 
> factory. I mean.. why use a factory at all if the only factory available is 
> the one described on the Interface? you could just use new MessageImpl. 
>    The advantage of the factory would be to plug other message 
> implementations. For instance I just came up with a message implementation on 
> my JMS parser that doesn't parse the body (since my server doesn't need to do 
> it). I'm not using any of the factories here because of this. 
>     I don't want to make a big deal about this.. but I guess I would prefer 
> the old factories back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 1, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rafael Schloming <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Just a heads up, I've committed this to trunk. Please let me know if it
>> causes any problems.
>> 
>> --Rafael
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Rafael Schloming <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>> 
>>> I've put together a patch that makes the proton-j factory usage a bit
>>> simpler and more consistent. You can review it here if you like:
>>> 
>>> - https://reviews.apache.org/r/20854/
>>> 
>>> The main point of the patch is to make all the factories consistently
>>> follow this pattern:
>>> 
>>> package.Interface iface = package.Interface.Factory.create(...);
>>> 
>>> I like this because it is simple and easy to remember and doesn't require
>>> importing the impl packages directly.
>>> 
>>> The patch preserves the convenience constructors, e.g. Proton.connection()
>>> and so forth, but it does remove the old factory APIs. I think this is a
>>> reasonable thing to do because the old factories were cumbersome enough to
>>> use that I don't think anyone actually bothered (including our own
>>> exmaples).
>>> 
>>> In any case, please shout if this patch will be troublesome for you. If I
>>> don't hear anything I'll go ahead and commit it later this week.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> --Rafael
> 

Reply via email to