Re: Patch for jdbc escaped functions

Kris Jurka wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Xavier Poinsard wrote:
>
>
>>>I also don't like the prospect of a giant if/else block that has every
>>>function that must do some kind of mapping/translation. What about a more
>>>pluggable architecture perhaps along the lines of the following:
>>>
>>>public interface StandardFunction {
>>> public void toSQL(StringBuffer sb, ArrayList args);
>>>}
>>>
>>>Then a static HashMap of say lowercase function name -> StandardFunction
>>>implementation can move all of the mapping/translation into a separate
>>>place. Maybe that's overkill in the opposite direction. Thoughts?
>>
>>I used reflection to move the translation part to EscapedFunctions class.
>>Right ?
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure why you are using reflection. The available functions will
> be a static list, so I don't see what the purpose of dynamically
> inspecting this class is. Having one class instead of dozens?

Yes, considering the fact that each implementation would only consist of
five lines of codes, it seems overkill to have one class per function.
To avoid inspecting at every call, I could use a static HashMap
containing references to Method objects.

>
> Kris Jurka