; À : discuss@restlet.tigris.org
> Objet : Re: RE: Fluent API and StructureBuilder
>
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> It is not a big deal, as I mentioned before, and the latest solution
> does the job nicely. Having special builders to do the
> configuration job is
> much less inva
ly as I'm relying on a tree of specialized builders instead. Let =
>me
>know how we can improve this further. I know I need to provide a =
>specialized
>builder for HostMaplets in order to easily add allowed domains, ports, =
>etc.
>
>Best regards,
>Jerome
>
>>
stMaplets in order to easily add allowed domains, ports, etc.
Best regards,
Jerome
> -Message d'origine-
> De : news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Yuri de Wit
> Envoyé : jeudi 18 mai 2006 17:43
> À : discuss@restlet.tigris.org
> Objet : Re: Fluent API and Structu
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 en
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 <[E
Hi Jerome,
[...]
>> What I do not understand: How does the toMaplet() method help for code
>> completion? If you return a specialized Maplet here (that keeps a
>> reference to the builder) the code assistent would assume that only
>> "attach(String, Restlet)" and "attach(String, Class)" are allowe
Hi Lars,
> As long as the generic attach methods are also provided I like the
> proposal. :)
Absolutely, the other attach*() methods are just shortcut methods. But the
generic attach() methods would only be available for ChainletBuilder,
MapletBuilder and RestletContainerBuilder nodes.
> What I
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 Restle
Hi Jerome,
[...]
> The attach*() methods will move the focus to the attached/created node.
> Other methods will keep the focus on the current node.
> The up() and root() will change the focus in the tree of builder nodes.
> The to*() methods will allow the cast the builder to the best type (maybe
be
upMaplet() and rootComponent() are even better?).
Any thought?
Thanks,
Jerome
> -Message d'origine-
> De : news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Yuri de Wit
> Envoyé : mercredi 17 mai 2006 19:50
> À : discuss@restlet.tigris.org
> Objet : Re: Fluent API and St
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()
)
Hi,
[...]
> I can attach the code to the issue. Tomorrow.
Attached. Today. ;)
http://restlet.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/8/StructureBuilder.java
Best regards,
Lars
--
http://semagia.com
Hi all,
[...]
> I think this may be a better way to support your fluent design pattern. We
> could
> implement more complex things like multiple extractions, etcs. Let me think
> more
> about this.
[...]
To explain a bit further: The StrutureBuilder holds an internal stack
of Restlets and pushes
Added some comments to
http://restlet.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3D87
Yuri de Wit<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>For all my configuration cases right now, I only need fluent methods for
>the methods that configure the base Restlets (i.e. Maplets, and
>Chainlets). For custom chainlets and mapl
For all my configuration cases right now, I only need fluent methods for
the methods that configure the base Restlets (i.e. Maplets, and
Chainlets). For custom chainlets and maplets I have been using the constructor
to pass additional parameters.
At this point, I have a combination of a Configurat
Hi all,
Following a comment from Yuri and a separate email from Lars, there seems to
be a need to support the fluent design pattern described here:
http://www.bofh.org.uk/articles/2005/12/21/fluent-interfaces
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FluentInterface.html
On one side, Yuri has pushed for dir
16 matches
Mail list logo
