Re: [Geotools-devel] On BufferedAuthorityFactory

[Jody G. <jga...@re...>]

Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> In my "history fix" round, I restaured BufferedAuthorityFactory as it was before 
> ThreadAuthorityFactory and as an independent class (not a subclass of 
> ThreadedAuthorityFactory). This is because I feel that ThreadAuthorityFactory 
> could be a subclass of BufferedAuthorityFactory and just override the 
> 'getBackingStore()' method. We may talk about that later - it doesn't impact 
> your development in short term on ThreadedAuthorityFactory.
>   
I got no time left for talk martin -- That is why we had the proposal 
process :-(
I will be on IRC if you want to chat.
> That way, we get separation of concern (buffer vs thread). It also make more 
> obvious that ThreadedAuthorityFactory is buffered. Also, I'm not sure that 
> "ThreadedAuthorityFactory" was a better name than "BufferedAuthorityFactory" 
> because I believe that a majority of users will care more about buffering than 
> concurency (BufferedAuthorityFactory already handle many threads asking for a 
> same small set of CRS. ThreadAuthorityFactory handle many threads asking many 
> different CRS, which should be a less common case I think).
>   
Both are trying to do the same thing; handle multiple threads. In actual 
fact even the direct authority factories for sql are buffered (in that 
they contain an optional backpointer "buffered" to their dispatcher that 
has a buffer).

I am glad we are all understanding the design - let's get the work done. 
Every twitch we make on naming is costing me time, effort and trust.
Jody