Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:52:34 +0530
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <it0bp9$s3t$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <it07on$ilc$1@speranza.aioe.org> <95ho4qFd7cU1@mid.individual.net> <dKudnSwyLLvWM27QnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: VXdcwsc5kgxY1YKHPVeYyQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5215

On 6/11/2011 11:34 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 10:49 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 11.06.2011 19:13, Abu Yahya wrote:
> ...
>>> else { // handle unrecognized
>>> Class<?> k = Class.forName(dbMgrClassName);
>>> db = (DB) k.newInstance();
>>> }
> ...
>> Doing if else cascades is certainly the worst thing - not so much
>> because of the performance but because of the deficiency that you need
>> to touch the code every time you want to add a new class. With the other
>> two approaches you do not have to do that.
> ...
>
> As coded, the forName code was left in as a fall-through handler, so it
> new classes can be handled without touching the code.

That's right.

> Of course, that
> also means it has all the complications of both the if-else approach and
> the forName approach.

The intent was to get the best of both worlds, but I agree it's made it 
less easy to understand.