Hello all! In my opinion, both approaches do have their pros and cons. One difference between doing the db-optimization by using the adapter-concept or doing it by subclassing will appear in the domain.xml-configuration: The use of the adapter is a little bit more complicated, because the user has to configure the adapter-class beside the store class. On the other hand the parameter that specifies the adapter could be optional to enable db auto detection. The use of subclassed store implementations does not require the configuration of an adapter-class but prevents the possibility for auto-detection of the db. So my vote would be to implement the adapters as stores, so that both configurations would be possible: Using db-optimized adapters/stores directly in the domain.xml if the user knows, which db is used - or using the generic j2ee-store that uses the adapters to enable db auto detection.
Daniel Am Dienstag, 4. November 2003 15:53 schrieb Oliver Zeigermann: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>2.) Why do you think the approach in org.apache.slide.store.impl.rdbms > >>is better than yours? Why is there an adapter? Also, where do you see a > >>nicer Java approach? > > > > Well with the adaptor then different DB optimizations maybe more easily > > accommodated. > > Also I prefer more structure that one big store class. What we have > > today grew out of something smaller. > > Well, the adapter really is big as well... > > But, I do not mind too much, as in my opinion it is simply a matter of > taste. As I said, I want to have something everyone can live with. So, > let's have a vote upon this. Whatever you people decide, I will do... > > So, everyone, votes please! > > Oliver > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
