There's quite an inconsistent package structure and class naming in the daos
I'd recommend a structure like this
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.IDaoat.owlsoft.owl.dao.DaoFactory
change it from an interface to an abstract class providing a singleton to a Db4oDaoFactory instance.
public DaoFactory getInstance() { ... }
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.IActivityDao (as mentioned in issue #1)
Upper layers should have no idea of db4o. They should only know those interfaces/base classes.
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.db4o.Db4oDaoFactoryat.owlsoft.owl.dao.db4o.Db4oDaoBase
Abstract base class for all Db4o Daos (currently there are two db4o base classes??)
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.Db4oActivityDao (as mentioned in issue #1)
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.Db4oConfigurationDao
...
There's quite an inconsistent package structure and class naming in the daos
I'd recommend a structure like this
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.IDao
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.DaoFactory
change it from an interface to an abstract class providing a singleton to a Db4oDaoFactory instance. public DaoFactory getInstance() { ... }at.owlsoft.owl.dao.IActivityDao
(as mentioned in issue #1) Upper layers should have no idea of db4o. They should only know those interfaces/base classes.at.owlsoft.owl.dao.db4o.Db4oDaoFactory
at.owlsoft.owl.dao.db4o.Db4oDaoBase
Abstract base class for all Db4o Daos (currently there are two db4o base classes??)at.owlsoft.owl.dao.Db4oActivityDao
(as mentioned in issue #1)at.owlsoft.owl.dao.Db4oConfigurationDao
...