WRT org.apache.commons.csv.CSVFormat.CSVFormat(char, Character, Quote, Character, Character, boolean, boolean, String, String, String[])
There does not seem to be a good reason why this is not public. The only argument I've heard is that some people do not like to use long ctors. But so what? If we make it public, users have the choice to the the whole fluent builder API or not. Thoughts? Gary On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would be ok with making the parser and format ctors public. What > else? I agree that we should not force force folks into an API pattern > but here it's not a big API at least. > > Gary > > On Apr 8, 2013, at 17:02, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Le 08/04/2013 22:39, Gary Gregory a écrit : > > > >> But that's the price for immutability for some of these objects. > > > > Not sure, we already achieved immutability last year without paying this > > price: > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/csv/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/csv/CSVFormat.java?p=1305548 > > > > This design was sacrified for the sake of implementing a "by the book" > > builder pattern that brings no real benefit in term of usability. It's > > just a useless layer of complexity. > > > > > > Emmanuel Bourg > > > > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
