Commons Proxy has an interface very much like the one you're suggesting. I considered using Commons Functor's "Function" interface instead.
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Oliver Heger <oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de> wrote: > The idea is related to some classes in the concurrent package that provide > specific ways to create objects, e.g. lazy creation or creation in a > background thread. If there was a standard factory interface implemented by > these classes, client code could directly make use of these enhanced object > creation facilities without having to be adapted. > > In addition, a factory interface would offer all advantages of the factory > pattern, for instance lose coupling or a better testability. > > But I agree with Gary and Stephen that such an interface would have to be > supported widely by library classes to be successful. This is probably hard > to achieve. In the case of [lang] I don't see an obvious place where objects > are created and where this interface could be used. > > Oliver > > Gary Gregory schrieb: >> >> Unless [lang] would use it internally all over the place. Is there a case >> for that? How is the interface useful without parameters? >> >> Gary >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@btopenworld.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 15:55 >>> To: Commons Developers List >>> Subject: Re: [lang] Generic object factories >>> >>> Once upon a time, there was a commons sandbox project that held all >>> sorts of small interfaces just like this one. It was called commons- >>> pattern. >>> >>> It didn't suceed, because these interfaces really need to be provided >>> by >>> the JDK and implemented by all the JDK classes to be successful. Beyond >>> that, it turned out to be better to have domain specific interfaces. >>> >>> Thus, I would recommend stronlgy against having this in [lang]. Today, >>> [functor] and [collections] are the right places for this in commons - >>> [lang] doesn't have the necessary domain to back it up. >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> >>> Oliver Heger wrote: >>>> >>>> With Java 1.5 it is possible to define a generic interface for >>> >>> creating >>>> >>>> an object: >>>> >>>> public interface ObjectFactory<T> { >>>> T create(); >>>> } >>>> >>>> This is a proposal to add such an interface to [lang] 3.0 with a >>> >>> couple >>>> >>>> of default implementations, e.g. >>>> - a ConstantObjectFactory returning always the same constant object, >>>> - a ReflectionObjectFactory which creates new instances of a given >>> >>> class >>>> >>>> using reflection >>>> >>>> Some Initializer classes in the concurrent package also deal with the >>>> creation of objects. They could implement this interface, too. >>>> >>>> Client classes that use this interface to create dependent objects >>> >>> would >>>> >>>> be pretty flexible. By specifying concrete factory implementations it >>> >>> is >>>> >>>> easy to configure the concrete objects they use and how they are >>> >>> created >>>> >>>> as well. >>>> >>>> Does this make sense? >>>> Oliver >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
