Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Which databases are the most used with Java
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:14:09 +0200
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <eve0iiFgbdbU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <87y3qovwjb.fsf@munus.decebal.nl> <omovh9$ad2$1@news.albasani.net> <87tw1bx2c9.fsf@munus.decebal.nl> <omptib$5qm$1@news.albasani.net> <evbk6cFud9oU1@mid.individual.net> <878tins1li.fsf@munus.decebal.nl> <87wp67qhyp.fsf@munus.decebal.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net YweKw5WmAbQmcrpesEdrKwRr2gpxlGIqR/G/AleGc/qc83VjE=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3r7zJwpBrYCltWV+uogk07B37rE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
In-Reply-To: <87wp67qhyp.fsf@munus.decebal.nl>
Content-Language: en-GB
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:37220

On 13.08.2017 23:24, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> writes:
> 
>> Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Another aspect of the original question that puzzled me right from the
>>> start: why does it matter at all what JDBC driver is really used.  Since
>>> all the types are interfaces anyway _any_ JDBC driver should work with
>>> the wrapper library (except vendor specific things which require
>>> specific types anyway).
>>
>> The only things that differs (as long as you only use generic
>> functionality) is the URLPrefix. That is why I think it is not much
>> work to generate the other concrete classes when the abstract and
>> first concrete class are finished.
> 
> I think that everything that is needed to generate a new concrete
> class is:
>      package nl.decebal.sql;
> 
> 
>      import java.sql.SQLException;
> 
> 
>      public class SQLFoo extends AbstractSQL {
>          // ################ main
>          public static void main(final String[] args) throws SQLException {
>              AbstractSQL.mainWork(SQLFoo.class.getCanonicalName(), args);
>          }
> 
>          // ################ constructors
>          public SQLFoo(String database) throws SQLException {
>              super(database);
>          }
> 
>          // ################ default
>          @Override
>          String getURLPrefix() {
>              return "jdbc:foo:";
>          }
>      }
> 

But why tie your code to concrete JDBC implementations at all, 
especially since you do not seem to want to create custom code for 
individual JDBC drivers?  Why not just pass in the class name, JDBC URL 
and other properties which are needed during initialization and free 
yourself from any dependency?

Cheers

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/