Hi Bertrand
Thinking about this a little more, I wondered whether lambda
expressions would be a good fit? The usage could look something like
this:
builderService
.forResource("/")
.resource("foo/c/d", d -> {
d.resource("a", a -> a.resource("b/c"));
d.resource("b");
d.resource("c");
})
.resource("bar/a/b") // bar is a sibling of foo
The signature ".resource(path, lambda)" would not change the parent
context of the underlying builder. Thus chaining calls would result in
sibling resources.
WDYT?
Regards
Julian
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Peter Hunsberger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm new enough to this that I'm not sure my expectations count, but that
> seems pretty good.
>
> In theory there would be a version that mixes concerns a little but makes
> the syntax a little simpler. Something like:
>
> resourceHandler rh = resourceResolver,getHandler("/apps");
> rh2 = rh.resource("1/2").resource("3/4"); // yields 1/2/3/4
> rh2.resource("5/6"); // yields 1/2/3/4/5/6
> rh2.resource("7/8"); // builds 1/2/3/4/7/8
>
> I suspect this pattern would require multiple inheritance to avoid massive
> refactoring so it's likely best left for the day you rewrite Sling in Scala
> (you're going to do that right ? )
>
> I'm running away now.....
>
>
>
> Peter Hunsberger
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]
>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Peter Hunsberger
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > ...I see. I had assumed a more functional style with the state travelling
>> > with the return value, that then get's chained to the next call....
>>
>> I have modified the ResourceBuilder interface to work in this way, so
>> you can now do
>>
>> final Resource r = resourceResolver.getResource("/apps");
>> builderService.forParent(r).resource("1/2);
>> builderService.forParent(r).resource("3/4");
>>
>> To create both /apps/1/2 and /apps/3/4.
>>
>> Basically you need to use either forResolver(ResourceResolver r) or
>> forParent(Resource r) on the ResourceBuilder service to get a stateful
>> ResourceBuilder, where you can then chain calls but not call the for*
>> methods again.
>>
>> Is that closer to what you expected, or do you have a better idea?
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
