Let me clarify, I have no problem with adding Factories and using them
everywhere possible. Just don't take my access away from direct
constructors.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.comwrote:
In general dependency on implementation is bad, dependency on
What's your need for the direct constructor?
-- Rob
On 25 January 2013 15:49, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
Let me clarify, I have no problem with adding Factories and using them
everywhere possible. Just don't take my access away from direct
constructors.
On Fri, Jan 25,
FWIW, I don't think Hiram's usage fundamentally needs to depend on the pure
Java impl. I may be out of date on this one, but I believe his access of
the implementation was done for expediency. I know at least in a number of
cases we discussed how the C implementation could accommodate his
On 23 January 2013 17:36, Phil Harvey p...@philharveyonline.com wrote:
As part of the Proton JNI work, I would like to remove all calls to
proton-j implementation constructors from client code. I intend that
factories will be used instead [1], thereby abstracting away whether the
You not actually going to prohibit folks for using the old constructors are
you?
I'd say adding factories is a good thing, and you should encourage folks to
use the factories instead of the constructors, but please don't stop folks
from using the constructors directly.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.comwrote:
On 23 January 2013 17:36, Phil Harvey p...@philharveyonline.com wrote:
As part of the Proton JNI work, I would like to remove all calls to
proton-j implementation constructors from client code. I intend that
When I asked the original question I had been assuming that the contrib
modules were intended to be using the proton-api interfaces, but had to
resort to concrete types for tactical reasons pending a more complete API.
If that assumption were true, then using factory interfaces rather than
