On 20 Nov 2009, at 12:10, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > I am very against the idea of runtime failures. That's the whole > point of a type safe fluent API.
Yeah - understandable, the fewer exceptions thrown the better I guess. > I would rather put the effort on the framework side than on the > developer side. > A string query language or a dynamic language is better if you are > not bothered with helping the developer to write the query. > > On 20 nov. 2009, at 12:31, Navin Surtani <nsurt...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Heya, >> >> I was just thinking last night about a couple of things about the >> DSL. >> >> Mainly, instead of having lots of return types, for example you >> created a BooleanContext and a Negatable version if the Occur >> clause was MUST. I was wondering, instead of having separate >> contexts, is it easier to have one - and then if a user calls a >> buildQuery() without sufficient information to actually build one >> we throw an exception? >> >> I think this is cleaner in some ways because we don't have to >> create so many different types of class, and we're always returning >> the same instance. However, the drawback is that by this method we >> "allow the user to make a mistake" and will be needing to throw >> exceptions. So here's where the discussion starts - what are pros/ >> cons of each system and which wind up being a better one to build? >> Personally, I think having a single class context is better because >> 1 - it's simpler to build and 2 - as long as classes are documented >> properly and exceptions thrown are clear as to what the issue is >> then we're okay. >> >> Ideas? Thoughts? >> >> Navin Surtani >> >> Intern Infinispan >> Intern JBoss Cache Searchable >> Navin Surtani Intern Infinispan Intern JBoss Cache Searchable _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
