On 7 Jan 2013, at 5:03 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> I've tried hard to find an agreement on this, but it seems we're > wasting time without making progress. > I'm not happy in ignoring a strong recommendation from any of you, > very hard choice :-( In the end it is your call. I tried to give arguments for my position, but we seem to have general disagreement on how to develop/evolve an interface. If you want to have a specific method for deletion I recommend: String getShardIdentifierForAddition(Class<?> entityType, Serializable id, String idAsString, Document document); String getShardIdentifierDeletion(Class<?> entityType, Serializable id, String idAsString); So I would re-add the suffixes 'ForAddition' and 'ForDeletion'. Also I'd change the return type of getShardIdentifierDeletion. I test would be nice as well. Maybe if we see an actual example coded out we would have a better ground for discussion. Also, what are the concerns here? Performance, because I target all shards for deletion or security, aka a deletion is send to a shard which potentially belongs to a different customer. What is the actual performance gain between the two different scenarios? A factor of 2, 4, 10? > I'm inclined to add the method back, so that it's the users choice to pick > his battle. A poor choice imo. > Of course our template implementation could provide a sensible default > method, so all users looking for simplicity don't need to bother too > much about the extra method. So now we use the abstract template class as an excuse to have a mediocre interface. If anything this is a reason for me to dislike the template implementation even more. --Hardy _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
