One thing that I forgot to mention is that using new XXX() as the new "stack" instead of up()/back() still allows you to comment/uncomment what you want and you get some auto indentation for free when using IDEs. :-) regards,
-- yuri Yuri de Wit<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Hi Lars, > >fair enough. The back() (or up() as proposed by Jerome) is indeed more >flexible (even though I am not sure how an IDE will auto format that - >minor detail) and I'll be happy to use it as soon as Jerome incorporate it >instead of what I have been using. >regards, > >-- yuri > > >Lars Heuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Hi Yuri, >> >>> Interesting... >> >>> The approach I was taking was to use Java itself as the stack by using a >>> "new XXX()" to create/"push" a new entry to the "stack". >>> .attach("/a", new Maplet() >>> .attach("/b", new Maplet()) >>> .attach("/c", >>> new Restlet() >>> ) >>> ) >>> ) >> >>Yep, I thought about the same approach but it has the disadvantage >>that you cannot easily comment out a section and you have to keep >>track about the braces (or the IDE does it). >>I am very happy that I could do the following: >> >> builder >> .attach(SomeChainlet(....)) >> .attach(Someother) >> >>And if I don't need a chainlet or maplet I can easily comment it out >>without breaking the flow. >> >> builder >>// .attach(SomeChainlet(....)) >> .attach(Someother) >> >> >> >>[...] >>> Each ")" above would correspond to the .back(1) in Lars solution, I >>> guess. The generic back(?) seems more flexible and I would interested in >>> knowing what kind of scenarios does it enable. >> >>I use it just to save some .back().back() chains if I've to jump to a >>higher level. It is build in because I am lazy. ;) >> >>Best regards, >>Lars >>-- >>http://semagia.com >> > > > >-- > > > --