From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Xavier Poinsard <xpoinsard(at)free(dot)fr> |
Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch for jdbc escaped functions |
Date: | 2004-11-24 10:57:44 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.56.0411240552480.6336@leary.csoft.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
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?
Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-11-24 13:16:42 | UNICODE and 8.0.0beta5 |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-11-24 10:19:44 | Re: Copying into Unicode - Correcting Errors |