Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Interface with implied Constructor
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:13:59 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <kric62$gcb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <krgpcp$pba$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:08:18 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fba3415ba68d85d643935af2f52f0b4b"; logging-data="16779"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18k7T/tXW7j3YQMGRd9kp48I19ldt3FG1U="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
In-Reply-To: <krgpcp$pba$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kCu/gEAoXQ2+/YhS3uYb0NbYoGQ=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:24720

On 7/9/2013 3:41 AM, Richard Maher wrote:

> Most people I have consulted recommend going the null Constructor in
> combination with Setters, or an INIT() method, to communicate the

Well, that's something to consider.  Personally, I don't see much 
difference, although you've given us no details as to what you are 
actually doing here, or any particulars at all.  If most people you 
consult say not to do something, maybe they know something we don't.

You may wish to compare with Java's DriverManager, which will load and 
configure a class based on a single init string.

DriverManager.getConnection( "jdbc:vendor://username:password"
		+ "@domain:port/schema",
                    connectionProps);

That isn't terrible, but it's not particularly elegant either, and your 
colleagues may be concerned with maintenance issues, or other things.

I think you should forget reflection loading, and use a regular factory 
if at all possible. Even better is to not use a factory and just access 
the class directly.  Is there a reason you can't just name the class and 
use it?  You're certain the actual class file must be supplied at 
runtime, and can't possibly known at compile time?

What do you envision the API to load this class looks like?  The public 
one your colleagues will see, not your internal implementation.