Hi, what do you people think about using the GoF
Factory (design) pattern ?
F.I.

abstract class Database {

	//common database stuff
	public abstract void connect(string user, string pw);
	// execSql(); prepare() etc...
}

abstract class DatabaseFactory {

   public abstract Database GetDatabase();
}

class PostgreSQL:Database {

	// common
   public override void connect(string user, string pw) {

   }
   //PostgreSQL specific
   public void funkyPGstuff() {}
}

class PostreSQLFactory:DatabaseFactory {

   public override Database GetDatabase() {

      return new PostgreSQL();

   }
}

class MySQL:Database {

	// common
   public override void connect(string user, string pw) {

   }
   //MySQL specific
   public void funkyMySQLstuff() {}
}

class MySQLFactory:DatabaseFactory {

   public override Database GetDatabase() {

      return new MySQL();

   }
}

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:02:13 +0200, bls wrote:

> Hi, what do you people think about using the GoF Factory (design)
> pattern ?
> F.I.

for one, in this case, better to use interface only, and connect method can return instance of Database class, saving one factory and one method.


interface IDatabase {
    SqlCommand createCommand ();
}

class MySql : IDatabase {
    static MySql connect (..specific args,probably connection string);
}

But yes, using factory classes and methods is good approach to this design problem.