Joel Fielder wrote:
> Perhaps the named constructor idiom is an
> alternative option for consideration?
I don't see a big difference. Lacking a strong motivation, I'll go with
the non-idiomatic way. The problem with idioms is that they're
confusing to those who don't know them yet.
Another problem I have with the named constructor idea is that I don't
think I can get away with hiding Connection's ctor. You need it for
those instances where you don't really know what kind of connection you
will need in advance, and want to rely on the current behavior, where it
figures it out from the values you pass.
Think of the subclasses as specializations for those times when you can
afford to trade flexibility for simplicity.