Fedor Karpelevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think I would prefer a StringBuffer. In which case I'd prefer a method
> > named toStringBuffer(DB db).
>
> I think using StringBuffer would be less efficient than StringStackBuffer as
> you would still have to coipy a lot of strings back and forth. I would name
> the method toStringStackBuffer if it was not that long and scary...
StringStackBuffer is definitely more efficient than a vanilla
StringBuffer. It actually uses a StringBuffer under the covers, but
properly pre-allocates the buffer size to the exact size of the
resulting String (as efficient as one can get in Java).
I gasped at the unwieldly toStringStackBuffer()...let's choose a
different name (like toSQL() or something ;).
> > > btw in my opinion the better design allows for cleaner reuse of
> > > Query/Condition objects (they are thread-safe too) so you will be able
> > > to
> > > save a lot of the calls etc...
The method names for the highest level interfaces should be non
SQL-specific to more easily accomodate LDAP, etc.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
