Agree, but I think this is how people would probably use it. The TableBuilder and FormBuilder would have 95% of the code you would need and then you would subclass it to provide that last 5% for your work.
regards Malcolm Edgar On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM, [email protected]<[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah builders/factories are great for building click forms/tables, but I > find writing my own much more flexible because I always tend to customize > the objects created. > > Huy >> >> Hi Malcolm, >> >> This looks awesome. Definitely makes for good examples. >> >> regards >> >> bob >> >> >> Malcolm Edgar wrote: >>> >>> Please see the JIRA below: >>> >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLK-565 >>> >>> This provides two example patterns. I think it would be good to >>> include something like this in click extras. >>> >>> regards Malcolm Edgar >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Adrian A.<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is a topic I wanted to raise for 2.2 is introducing a >>>>> builder/factory capability in Click. We have used this in projects >>>>> and it greatly number of lines of code. Personally I think this is a >>>>> better approach than method chaining. >>>> >>>> +1 for this (instead of method chaining). The same for other frequently >>>> used >>>> APIs. >>>> >>>>> I >>>>> will u pload some builder/factory patterns later today. >>>> >>>> Any news on this? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Adrian. >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
