Now what?
I'd like to release a 1.0 but we need to come to some agreement on a config
API...
Gary
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Maybe we first have to decide if we want validation of CSVFormats at
> construction time or not. If not, the changes of CSV-68 can be rever
Maybe we first have to decide if we want validation of CSVFormats at
construction time or not. If not, the changes of CSV-68 can be reverted.
Benedikt
2012/11/21 James Carman
> I don't really have a problem with the extra call to build() before
> you have something useful. It does give us the
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 do
Le 20/11/2012 23:57, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Ok this is good. Let's see some healthy debating. :)
Until the debate degrades my mental health...
> What is the alternate API?
The pre CSV-68 API.
> To me the bother is the extra build() call, but that's the pattern.
A pattern is not a feature o
Another way of looking at the builder style is that it is Java's way of
using keyword arguments for complex constructors. It also allows a
reasonable amount of future-proofing.
These benefits are hard to replicate with constructors. On the other hand,
builder-style patterns are a royal pain with
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, Emmanue
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
Hey Ted,
no I was referring to the comments of CSV-68, where it was stated that no
other CSV library provides validation of the used CSV formats (and hence it
can be removed from commons csv entirely).
Benedikt
2012/11/20 Ted Dunning
> Surely you meant to say no other commons library.
>
> Bui
Surely you meant to say no other commons library.
Builder patterns are relatively common. See guava for instance:
http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git/javadoc/com/google/common/base/Splitter.html
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> - it has been argued that usin
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gary and I did some work on CSV-68 Use the Builder Pattern to create
> CSVFormats [1].
> We have implemented a builder for CSVFormats in trunk. It is capable of...
>
> ...creating a CSVFormat from scratch by only passing in a delimi
Hi,
Gary and I did some work on CSV-68 Use the Builder Pattern to create
CSVFormats [1].
We have implemented a builder for CSVFormats in trunk. It is capable of...
...creating a CSVFormat from scratch by only passing in a delimiter:
CSVFormat format = CSVFormat.newBuilder(',').build();
...creati
11 matches
Mail list logo
