[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-750?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14193413#comment-14193413
]
Adrian Cole edited comment on JCLOUDS-750 at 11/1/14 7:47 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Recap.
So, you now specify a SerializedNames annotation on an auto-value builder. This
controls the naming convention, especially those annoying ones like IPAddress
vs IpAddress.
Side-notes, but
1. please don't create builders for output-only types.
2. For input-types, where parameter list is over 3, a builder may still make
sense. In that case, still create the factory method, and use that in your
builder.
3. Use Nullable instead of Optional. Using Optional inconsistently is worse
than Nullable, and inconsistent has become status quo. Since Optional also
conflicts in Java 8 (as well other jvm langs), just use Nullable.
Here's an example complete type, complete with odd-naming convention.
{code}
@AutoValue
public abstract class NetworkSettings {
public abstract String ipAddress();
@Nullable public abstract String portMapping();
@SerializedNames({ "IPAddress","PortMapping" })
public static NetworkSettings create(String ipAddress, String portMapping) {
return new AutoValue_NetworkSettings(ipAddress, portMapping);
}
}
{code}
was (Author: adriancole):
Recap.
So, you now specify a SerializedNames annotation on an auto-value builder. This
controls the naming convention, especially those annoying ones like IPAddress
vs IpAddress.
Side-notes, but
1. please don't create builders for output-only types.
2. For input-types, where parameter list is over 3, a builder may still make
sense. In that case, still create the factory method, and use that in your
builder.
3. Use Nullable instead of Optional. It is worse to use it inconsistently
than using Nullable. Since Optional conflicts in Java 8 (as well other jvm
langs), just use Nullable.
Here's an example complete type, complete with odd-naming convention.
{code}
@AutoValue
public abstract class NetworkSettings {
public abstract String ipAddress();
@Nullable public abstract String portMapping();
@SerializedNames({ "IPAddress","PortMapping" })
public static NetworkSettings create(String ipAddress, String portMapping) {
return new AutoValue_NetworkSettings(ipAddress, portMapping);
}
}
{code}
> Replace hand-written domain classes with Auto-Value ones
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-750
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-750
> Project: jclouds
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Adrian Cole
> Assignee: Adrian Cole
>
> In doing maintenance and ports, I've noticed that we have drift related to
> using guava to implement hashCode/equals on domain classes. Having an
> opportunity for a guava incompatibility on something like this is not high
> value, in my opinion. Moreover, we have a lot of other inconsistency in our
> value classes, which have caused bugs, and extra review time on pull requests.
> Auto-Value generates concrete implementations and takes out the possibility
> of inconsistency of field names, Nullability, etc. It is handled at compile
> time, so doesn't introduce a dependency of note, nor a chance of guava
> version conflict for our users.
> https://github.com/google/auto/tree/master/value
> While it may be the case that we need custom gson adapters (ex opposed to the
> ConstructorAnnotation approach), or a revision to our approach, I believe
> that this work is worthwhile.
> While it is the case that our Builders won't be generated, I still think this
> is valuable. For example, in many cases, we shouldn't be making Builders
> anyway (ex. they are read-only objects never instantiated, such as lists).
> Even if we choose to still write Builders, the problem is isolated there.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
