I don't really have a problem with the extra call to build() before you have something useful. It does give us the ability to do validation on the object before you build it. If we choose not to do the validation at this time, that's fine, but if we ever do choose to add that in the future, we don't have to break API backward compatibility to do so.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok this is good. Let's see some healthy debating. :) > > What is the alternate API? > > To me the bother is the extra build() call, but that's the pattern. > > Could an alt API be used and co-exist? > > Is making the ctor an option? It would have to do some validation. > > Gary > > On Nov 20, 2012, at 16:59, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Le 20/11/2012 20:01, Benedikt Ritter a écrit : >> >>> Please share your thoughts about the builder. >> >> Sorry Benedikt but I have to say I really don't like this design. I >> prefer a simpler API for the reasons you mentioned in the disadvantages. >> The minor improvements from the developer's point of view are much less >> important than the ease of use from user's point of view. >> >> Emmanuel Bourg >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
