> You mean QueryExecutor, right? Now it's in line with UpdateExecutor and > InsertExecutor, but I feel a bit uncomfortable with theses classes as > they mostly expose protected methods and don't look like they are meant > to be extended. >
Yes, I did mean QueryExecutor... sorry. I make my methods protected rather than private because I'm not sure how someone (maybe myself) will need to change functionality in the future. If I make them private, then there's not going back. If I make them protected, someone can always extend and provide new functionality. I'm open to other suggestions/ideas though. > Would it be possible to make the protected method in AbstractExecutor > package private? > Yes... but to what advantage? > Regarding the GenerousBeanProcessor class I still don't understand its > name :) I think a more detailed Javadoc would be welcome. > It is more "generous" in finding a matching name in the bean for a column. It will try to remove underscores from column names to match bean names. Maybe a better name would/could be UnderscoreAgnosticBeanHandler, but I think the idea was to eventually extend GenerousBeanProcessor to include an array (or string) of single characters that could be replaced/removed in an attempt to find a match. I don't think this needs to be a blocker though to get 2.0 out the door. I'll update the JavaDocs though. Thanks for the feedback! Bill-
