NamingStrategy is not a service. It is solely a function of building the metadata.
Currently, again, I have this set up via ctor param passing: new MetadataSources( reg, new MyNamingStrategy() ) Really its not logically part of the source, its needed during the transition from source->metadata, so an alternative I have been contemplating is: new MetadataSources( reg ).buildMetadata( new MyNamingStrategy() ) I am open to other suggestions. I really am trying to keep in mind the scope in which stuff is needed/useful/valid. On 04/21/2011 03:11 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > > On 21 avr. 2011, at 05:43, Steve Ebersole wrote: > >> I think this new API for creating a SessionFactory is starting to firm >> up, so I wanted to put out another call for feedback before we get too >> close to Alpha3. So at a high level there are 2 pieces of information >> needed to build the SessionFactory: the ServiceRegistry and the Metadata. >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> The ServiceRegistry is built through a ServiceRegistryBuilder (this is a >> slight recent change) >> >> Map config = ...; >> ServiceRegistry serviceRegistry = new ServiceRegistryBuilder( config ) >> ... >> .buildServiceRegistry(); >> >> The "..." allows you to add service instances and service initiators. >> Currently any (map of) configuration values is passed in the >> constructor. I can be convinced to allow adding/setting of config >> values as well, if everyone has a preference for that approach: >> >> Map config = ...; >> ServiceRegistry serviceRegistry = new ServiceRegistryBuilder() >> .setConfigurationData( config ) >> .setOption( Environment.SHOW_SQL, >> true ) >> ... >> .buildServiceRegistry(); >> >> Not sure the best method names there, to be honest which is why I opted >> for passing them to ctor. > > Is that a Map<Object,Object> or something a bit more refined? > > Regardless of the map being passed to the ctor, I'd think you need to ability > to set additional options (like you setOptions) > > Alternative names: > option: setting > > Not really related but, now that Configuration is gone, we lose some of the > type safety (like cfg.setNamingStrategy(new MyNamingStrategy() ), or am I > forgetting something in how the service registry works? > >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Metadata is built through a MetadataSources which represents the sources >> of metadata information. >> >> MetadataSources metadataSources = new MetadataSources( serviceRegistry ) >> .addResource( "some.hbm.xml" ) >> .addAnnotatedClass( SomeEntity.class ); >> Metadata metadata = metadataSources.buildMetadata(); >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> The Metadata is then used to obtain a SessionFactory. >> >> SessionFactory sf = metadata.buildSessionFactory(); >> >> >> Metadata represents the "configuration time" mapping information. As of >> now we will allow users to manipulate and otherwise access this >> information, hence the seeming "intermediate step". These all work with >> chaining: >> >> SessionFactory sf = new MetadataSources( serviceRegistry ) >> .addResource( "some.hbm.xml" ) >> .addAnnotatedClass( SomeEntity.class ) >> .buildMetadata() >> .buildSessionFactory(); >> > > I guess you could have a buildMetadataSources() hosted on ServiceRegistry if > you want people to use chaining methods all the way. -- Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> http://hibernate.org _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
