Re: DataContextFactory

From: Kevin Menard (kmenar..ervprise.com)
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 08:05:46 EDT

  • Next message: Mike Kienenberger: "Re: DataContextFactory"

    Mike Kienenberger wrote:
    > Yeah, it's the " but still..." that could make it harder.

    Hmm . . . you guys have me drawn here. Part of me says don't limit the
    usefulness for the user, but the other part says make it as easy as
    possible. Couldn't we use the rather standard interface, abstract class
     interaction?

    So, basically there would be an interface that's general, like Andrus's,
    but a default abstract class that other factories could inherit from,
    and this class would provide simple wrappers. So, that extra line of
    code that Andrus mentioned and that does seem hairy could really be
    hidden from the user. Of course in the user's DataContextFactory
    implementation, he'd have to know which super method to call, but I
    think an aptly named method here could accomplish what is needed without
    introducing the user to shared caches and such . . .

    -- 
    Kevin
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 08:05:28 EDT