2012/10/16 Gary Gregory <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On 16 October 2012 17:44, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM, James Carman
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Matt Benson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Are these specific examples not the words you would actually use were
>> >>> you having a discussion on the subject in English? :P
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Why not just support both? The "with*" methods would just be aliases
>> >> for the more "natural language" method names.
>>
>> I would categorise first in two
>> - mutable builders producing immutable objects
>> - immutable objects
>>
>> The former should generally have short methods without prefixes, the
>> latter is more complex.
>>
>> For the latter, as a general rule, I use
>> withXxx()/plusXxx()/minusXxx() for items that affect the state and
>> past participle for other methods that manipulate the object in other
>> ways:
>>
>> // affects state (year/month/day)
>> date = date.withYear(2012)
>> date = date.plusYears(6)
>> // aftect multiple pieces of state, so past participle
>> period = period.multipliedBy(6)
>> period = period.negated()
>>
>> This is simply an extension of when you might use setXxx() on a bean,
>> and when you might use a named method.
>>
>
> I like the idea of two classes: CVSFormat and CVSFormatBuilder but...
>
> My next question is: Does CVSFormat have any public constructors? If not,
> the builder can throw exceptions when one of its methods is called and
> validation fails. This is nice in the sense that the format object feels
> more lightweight and has a simpler/shorter protocol. It also leaves room
> for other builders to be added (to configured formats from config files for
> example) without growing the format class itself.
>
> If CVSFormat does have public constructors, then the format class still has
> to do its own validation. What I gain is the choice of using a kitchen sink
> constructor or the fluent builder API, I can choose my style.
>
> If there are two classes, and I cannot build a format without a format
> builder, then why not collapse the two classes into one?
>
Hi Gary,
I agree. I'd favor to have no public constructors and a builder that
is an internal class of CSVFormat. Users create CSVFormatBuilders by
calling a static method on CSVFormat:
CSVFormat format =
CSVFormat.defaults().withDelimiter('#').withCommentStart('/').build();
Where defaults() returns a builder that is initialized with (suprise)
the values of the default format. No need to call a validate method.
Benedikt
> Gary
>
>
>> Stephen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
