You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ojb-dev@db.apache.org by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com> on 2004/02/11 17:33:59 UTC
[OT] Re: Feature proposal
This has bugged me for a while, what is the love of FooIF for interface
tagging? It reminds me if m_intFoo which makes me want to curl up under
my desk and cry. IndirectionHandler seems like a good name to me =)
-Brian
On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:25 AM, Andy Malakov wrote:
>> .. Rather than extend I would lean towards providing alternate
>> implementations
>
> Thank you Brian, that would be even better. From what I can see
> clients use all public methods of IndirectionHandler:
>
> public interface IndirectionHandlerIF extends InvocationHandler {
> boolean alreadyMaterialized ();
> Object getRealSubject ()
> void setRealSubject (Object)
>
> void addListener (MaterializationListener listener);
> void removeListener (MaterializationListener listener);
> }
>
> Customized class may implement the above interface and declare
> constructor with the same signature as IndirectionHandler.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian McCallister" <mc...@forthillcompany.com>
> To: "OJB Developers List" <oj...@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Feature proposal
>
>
>> I am in favor of this in principle -- though want to look at the code
>> around the IndirectionHandler etc. Rather than extend I would lean
>> towards providing alternate implementations =)
>>
>> However, not before 1.0
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2004, at 7:45 PM, Andy Malakov wrote:
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> What do you guys think about allowing user to extend OJB
>>> IndirectionHandler (used as InvocationHandler for OJB Proxies created
>>> by OJB) ?
>>>
>>> Main benefit: Some methods of a persistable object can be dispatched
>>> based solely on object Identity available to Proxy handler (without
>>> object materialization).
>>>
>>> For example: In my system all persistable objects implement interface
>>> Persistable that provides basic features for obtaining object
>>> identity
>>> (similar to OJB Identity). I would like to be able to access to these
>>> methods on Proxy objects without target materialization.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is only one place where OJB constructs InvocationHandlers for
>>> persistable objects - class o.a.ojb.broker.VirtualProxy. Will it be
>>> possible to allow user to specify customized instance of
>>> IndirectionHandler (must be subclass of IndirectionHandler) in
>>> OJB.properties?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you agree I would be glad to send necessary updates for you
>>> approval.
>>>
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> P.S. Please CC me on reply.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: Feature proposal
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi all,
there are many naming conventions for interfaces / implementation:
Interface : Implementation
IXyz : Xyz (used in Eclipse)
Xyz : XyzImpl
XyzIF : Xyz
and i think we've got all of them in ojb ;)
personally i prefer Xyz : XyzImpl or IXyz : Xyz.
jakob
Gus Heck wrote:
> I agree just say what it does, let the java syntax identify the
> specifics... I have an otherwise good book that prepends I to all it's
> interfaces too which is almost ok until you get to a class that begins
> with I like this...
>
> IIndirectionHandler makes me an implementation of ILl. :)
>
> This does make me wonder if you have a doc outlining coding conventions
> in OJB? Seems like something I should consider if I provide any patches
> or submisions... Things like where you stand on this.foo vs _foo and
> where you want your braces relative to your if's.. etc.
>
> -Gus
>
> Brian McCallister wrote:
>
>> This has bugged me for a while, what is the love of FooIF for
>> interface tagging? It reminds me if m_intFoo which makes me want to
>> curl up under my desk and cry. IndirectionHandler seems like a good
>> name to me =)
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:25 AM, Andy Malakov wrote:
>>
>>>> .. Rather than extend I would lean towards providing alternate
>>>> implementations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you Brian, that would be even better. From what I can see
>>> clients use all public methods of IndirectionHandler:
>>>
>>> public interface IndirectionHandlerIF extends InvocationHandler {
>>> boolean alreadyMaterialized ();
>>> Object getRealSubject ()
>>> void setRealSubject (Object)
>>>
>>> void addListener (MaterializationListener listener);
>>> void removeListener (MaterializationListener listener);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Customized class may implement the above interface and declare
>>> constructor with the same signature as IndirectionHandler.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Brian McCallister" <mc...@forthillcompany.com>
>>> To: "OJB Developers List" <oj...@db.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Feature proposal
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am in favor of this in principle -- though want to look at the code
>>>> around the IndirectionHandler etc. Rather than extend I would lean
>>>> towards providing alternate implementations =)
>>>>
>>>> However, not before 1.0
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 2004, at 7:45 PM, Andy Malakov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think about allowing user to extend OJB
>>>>> IndirectionHandler (used as InvocationHandler for OJB Proxies created
>>>>> by OJB) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Main benefit: Some methods of a persistable object can be dispatched
>>>>> based solely on object Identity available to Proxy handler (without
>>>>> object materialization).
>>>>>
>>>>> For example: In my system all persistable objects implement interface
>>>>> Persistable that provides basic features for obtaining object identity
>>>>> (similar to OJB Identity). I would like to be able to access to these
>>>>> methods on Proxy objects without target materialization.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is only one place where OJB constructs InvocationHandlers for
>>>>> persistable objects - class o.a.ojb.broker.VirtualProxy. Will it be
>>>>> possible to allow user to specify customized instance of
>>>>> IndirectionHandler (must be subclass of IndirectionHandler) in
>>>>> OJB.properties?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you agree I would be glad to send necessary updates for you
>>>>> approval.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Please CC me on reply.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: Feature proposal
Posted by Gus Heck <gu...@olin.edu>.
I agree just say what it does, let the java syntax identify the
specifics... I have an otherwise good book that prepends I to all it's
interfaces too which is almost ok until you get to a class that begins
with I like this...
IIndirectionHandler makes me an implementation of ILl. :)
This does make me wonder if you have a doc outlining coding conventions
in OJB? Seems like something I should consider if I provide any patches
or submisions... Things like where you stand on this.foo vs _foo and
where you want your braces relative to your if's.. etc.
-Gus
Brian McCallister wrote:
> This has bugged me for a while, what is the love of FooIF for
> interface tagging? It reminds me if m_intFoo which makes me want to
> curl up under my desk and cry. IndirectionHandler seems like a good
> name to me =)
>
> -Brian
>
> On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:25 AM, Andy Malakov wrote:
>
>>> .. Rather than extend I would lean towards providing alternate
>>> implementations
>>
>>
>> Thank you Brian, that would be even better. From what I can see
>> clients use all public methods of IndirectionHandler:
>>
>> public interface IndirectionHandlerIF extends InvocationHandler {
>> boolean alreadyMaterialized ();
>> Object getRealSubject ()
>> void setRealSubject (Object)
>>
>> void addListener (MaterializationListener listener);
>> void removeListener (MaterializationListener listener);
>> }
>>
>> Customized class may implement the above interface and declare
>> constructor with the same signature as IndirectionHandler.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian McCallister" <mc...@forthillcompany.com>
>> To: "OJB Developers List" <oj...@db.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Feature proposal
>>
>>
>>> I am in favor of this in principle -- though want to look at the code
>>> around the IndirectionHandler etc. Rather than extend I would lean
>>> towards providing alternate implementations =)
>>>
>>> However, not before 1.0
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2004, at 7:45 PM, Andy Malakov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> What do you guys think about allowing user to extend OJB
>>>> IndirectionHandler (used as InvocationHandler for OJB Proxies created
>>>> by OJB) ?
>>>>
>>>> Main benefit: Some methods of a persistable object can be dispatched
>>>> based solely on object Identity available to Proxy handler (without
>>>> object materialization).
>>>>
>>>> For example: In my system all persistable objects implement interface
>>>> Persistable that provides basic features for obtaining object identity
>>>> (similar to OJB Identity). I would like to be able to access to these
>>>> methods on Proxy objects without target materialization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is only one place where OJB constructs InvocationHandlers for
>>>> persistable objects - class o.a.ojb.broker.VirtualProxy. Will it be
>>>> possible to allow user to specify customized instance of
>>>> IndirectionHandler (must be subclass of IndirectionHandler) in
>>>> OJB.properties?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you agree I would be glad to send necessary updates for you
>>>> approval.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Please CC me on reply.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org