AW: [sdo] New HelperProvider implementation

["Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>]

Hi Frank,

I'm guessing that this is a partial resolution to SDO-96, is that right?  If not, what is the issue that is being addressed here.

I think holding the information in a file in meta-inf is OK, certainly an improvement over what we have now, but in order to handle the bootstrapping problem, I think we need some additional options.  The problem with having things in a file in meta-inf is that it doesn't really change the situation about having only one SDO on the classpath, which the user always gets, no matter what.

A lot of systems allow specifying the implementation class through the API... InitialContext is a famous example of this.  Others allow configuration through system properties ("-D"s).  I think SDO should allow for all 3 configuration options, with the API given highest priority, System properties second, the mechanism which you provide third, and the fallback solution should be the fixed class name constant, as you have given it.

Best Regards,
Ron


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Frank Budinsky [mailto:frankb@ca.ibm.com] 
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Januar 2009 22:57
An: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: [sdo] New HelperProvider implementation

Hi Guys,

Attached is a proposed new implementation for class HelperProvider. The 
advantages of this impl are:

1. It allows SDO implementations be registered as a Java Service Provider 
- 
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/jar/jar.html#Service%20Provider
2. Implementations should not need to replace this impl, but instead 
simply plug in an subclass with necessary overrides.
3. I believe it's backward compatible with the previous version.

Please take a look at this impl, and let me know what you think. Maybe we 
can discuss in tomorrow's call?

Thanks,
Frank.