Re: Patch for jdbc escaped functions

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