So I wouldn't introduce Lombok Just for readability. Il mar 2 nov 2021, 22:57 Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Obviously this is my point of view, but technically,IMO, Lombok Is just a > lot of hype with more or less zero advantages, except readability. > > Il mar 2 nov 2021, 22:54 Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >> What are you mentioning is not for free. You don't see the boilerplate, >> but there is no magic, you'll pay this anyway. There is no good reason for >> using Lombok and i don't feel disturbed by reading boilerplate code or >> getter/setter >> >> Il mar 2 nov 2021, 22:35 Steve973 <steve...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >> >>> You see no advantage in getting boilerplate code for free, and keeping >>> your >>> beans, etc, free from accessors/mutators, no arg constructors, all arg >>> constructors, getting a builder for free, and lots of other stuff? I can >>> see avoiding it in a project for particular reasons, but most of the >>> "favorite" frameworks reduce a lot of boilerplate code, and Camel is >>> included in that. I'm not arguing, but I really am curious why you see >>> no >>> advantage. That is, of course, if it's appropriate to have this >>> conversation here, on this list. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:31 PM Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > There is no problem with license. Personally i never find any >>> advantage in >>> > using Lombok. >>> > >>> > Il mar 2 nov 2021, 21:23 Steve973 <steve...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >>> > >>> > > Hello. I normally use lombok to take care of boiler plate code in >>> > projects >>> > > that I work on. I have noticed that lombok is not used in the camel >>> code >>> > > base. Is there something about it (licensing or something else) that >>> > makes >>> > > it unsuitable for camel? I am working on something in camel-core, >>> and it >>> > > would be great to be able to use it to keep things cleaner. But I >>> would >>> > > think that if it was acceptable in an apache project, people would >>> > already >>> > > be using it. Does anyone have the details on this? >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Steve >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
