2013/8/8 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > 2013/8/8 Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> > > > > > Le 08/08/2013 15:40, Gary Gregory a écrit : > > > > > > > Sans type names: > > > > > > > > parse(File, CSVFormat) > > > > parse(String, Charset, ClassLoader, CSVFormat) > > > > parse(String, Charset, CSVFormat) > > > > [parse(String)] > > > > parse(String, CSVFormat) > > > > parse(URL, Charset, CSVFormat) > > > > > > That looks better. I would remove the methods for a classpath resource, > > > that's a less common case. That would make: > > > > > > parse(File, CSVFormat) > > > parse(String, CSVFormat) > > > parse(URL, Charset, CSVFormat) > > > > > > And you probably want a charset for the File too. > > > > > > > > > > [I'd probably remove parse(String) so that all APIs take a > CSVFormat.] > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > And at this point you realize they could belong to CSVFormat, because > > > they all need one to operate. > > > > > > format.parse(file): > > > > > > > A format can parse something... That sounds strange to me. > > > > Same here, it sounds strange that a format does anything like parsing. A > parser parses, that's obvious. When I leave [csv] alone for a while and get > back to it, the parser is always where I go look for an API to get started. > It's just weird to start with a format IMO. I would be OK with leaving the > format parser API there I suppose, but I do not think the format should be > the kitchen sink for all other input sources. Well, you can try to convince > me of course ;) >
Okay, so do we want to let parse(Reader) method as a convenience in CSVFormat? The CSVParser will serve as the main entry point to the API. What about the parse resource methods in CSVParser? Emmanuel has expressed feelings against this addition. I personally think reading from the class path should be done in client code. But since Gary seems to have a use case for this and I cannot really judge how common it is to read csv data from the class path I could live with this. What I really don't like is: public static CSVParser parse(String, CSVFormat) public static CSVParser parse(String, CharSet, CSVFormat) They look nearly the same yet they do completely different things... IMHO this cannot stay this way. WDYT? Benedikt > > Gary > > > > > Let's rename it to > > > > format.createParser(file) > > > > I'm +1 for having only one place to create parsers. > > And having less parameters is (in most cases) better. > > > > > > > > > > instead of: > > > > > > CSVParser.parse(file, format); > > > > > > > > > Emmanuel Bourg > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://people.apache.org/~britter/ > > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ > > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter > > http://github.com/britter > > > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition< > http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
