yes, jsonp API is quite smooth. agree that technically we can put the factory in the builder but actually I like having a product/spec entry point (Json, Validation, Persistence,....). It makes the API discovery super smooth compared to have to know N entry points.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> 2015-03-20 11:01 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > Being a member of the JSON-P 1.1 EG I also came across its builders and how > they're constructed. > http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/json/package-summary.html > shows relevant parts of the API. > > It's as simple as > JsonObject object = Json.createObjectBuilder().build(); > > So whatever we might call a similar factory for the builder, Configurations > or just Tamaya, doing something like > Configuration config = Tamaya.createConfigurationBuilder.build(); > sounds appealing. > > Of course a static create() method could also be on the > ConfigurationBuilder itself (in Java 8 even interfaces, for Java 7 we might > have to find a workaround;-) > > Werner > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > That's why I say a properly named useful static accessor makes sense. I'd > > be equally fine with the (completely hiding the constructor) way Typesafe > > does it, though IMHO the variants like defaultApp() and so on you'll find > > beside load() feel a bit cluttered and confusing. > > > > Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | > > Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer | Advisory > > Board Member, Java Track Chair, DWX '15 > > > > Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR377 | @JSR354 | @AgoravaProj | > #EclipseUOMo > > | #DeviceMap | #DevOps > > Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > >> well that's to build a config, do you expect it to do it for each > request? > >> > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber > >> <http://www.tomitribe.com> > >> > >> 2015-03-19 15:18 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <[email protected]>: > >> > >> > Just a question of preference, some (or several) projects tend to hide > >> the > >> > constructor, others accept it and yet other ones offer even both > ways;-D > >> > > >> > Configuration conf = new ConfigurationBuilder().build(); > >> > int bar1 = conf.getInteger("foo.bar"); > >> > > >> > From my earlier example for simplicity would be equally fine. > >> > > >> > One has to add, the static factory allows optimization especially for > a > >> > default case to cache something if it won't change for the lifetime of > >> an > >> > app/VM. > >> > If you call new ConfigurationBuilder() you always need to instantiate > a > >> new > >> > object, only the underlying JDK may help you save resources if it can. > >> > > >> > Werner > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Oliver B. Fischer < > >> > [email protected] > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > I don't see the value of the whole discussion. > >> > > > >> > > Why can I not simply say > >> > > > >> > > new ConfigurationBuilder(); > >> > > > >> > > What is wrong about it? > >> > > > >> > > Viele Grüße > >> > > > >> > > Oliver > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Am 19.03.15 um 14:59 schrieb Werner Keil: > >> > > > >> > >> Why would you get a builder FROM a configuration? I'd expect a > >> > >> configuration from a builder;-) > >> > >> So it'll be a builder "for" a particular configuration. > >> > >> > >> > >> valueOf() and getInstance() have been the two most common static > >> > factories > >> > >> and till Java 5 or even 6 they were the only ones used at all, not > >> just > >> > by > >> > >> JDK. > >> > >> While Josh Bloch started "playing" with of() in a single place > >> (EnumSet) > >> > >> it > >> > >> also got probably even more frequent in the .NET world. > >> > >> Dim xyz As Nullable(Of Date) > >> > >> > >> > >> is the way to use Nullable in VB.net. C# has a shortcut via "?". > Both > >> > are > >> > >> vaguely comparable to the new Optional class in Java 8. Where of() > is > >> > also > >> > >> used. Mostly new types or elements of Java 8 start getting it, so > you > >> > may > >> > >> call it less "common" for the rest of the platform. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If you prefer valueOf(), that would be just as good. from() or to() > >> only > >> > >> apply to conversions, they just make no sense in other cases. > >> > >> > >> > >> The new Lambda packages of Java 8 are full with of() and even > >> classes or > >> > >> inner types called Of*, etc. > >> > >> > >> > >> Most of its builders are static inner .Builder types btw, see > >> > >> static <T> Stream.Builder > >> > >> <http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/ > >> > >> stream/Stream.Builder.html> > >> > >> <T>builder > >> > >> <http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/ > >> > >> stream/Stream.html#builder--> > >> > >> () > >> > >> Returns a builder *for *a Stream. > >> > >> > >> > >> Aside from any particular names it should be as easy as Typesafe > >> > Config: > >> > >> > >> > >> Config conf = ConfigFactory.load(); > >> > >> int bar1 = conf.getInt("foo.bar"); > >> > >> Config foo = conf.getConfig("foo"); > >> > >> int bar2 = foo.getInt("bar"); > >> > >> > >> > >> but if you prefer the term Builder, it should be equally > >> > straightforward. > >> > >> > >> > >> Configuration conf = ConfigurationBuilder.getInstance().build(); > >> > >> int bar1 = conf.getInteger("foo.bar"); > >> > >> > >> > >> would require auto-boxing but compile a comparable Tamay example. > >> > >> Assuming > >> > >> ConfigurationBuilder needs to instanciate first. > >> > >> > >> > >> Typesafe's factory is a simple static class that takes various > >> > arguments. > >> > >> > >> > >> Oh btw, mostly used by Eclipse and OSGi, but there you see default > >> no-op > >> > >> factory methods called *getDefault*() almost everywhere. But then > >> > calling > >> > >> interfaces ISomething is also nearly unknown outside .NET or > >> Eclipse;-) > >> > >> > >> > >> Werner > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> > >> [email protected]> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> 2015-03-19 14:19 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> well let say common is subjective since it is as common to not use > >> it. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> here semantically it is wrong since you dont get the builder of a > >> > >>> configuration but you get a builder from a configuration. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> more root semantic would be unwrap or something like that - we can > >> > still > >> > >>> use but istoo technical IMO. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> using the constructor just makes this topic closed IMO. The static > >> > method > >> > >>> really brings nothing here. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> [email protected] > >> > >>> since > >> > >>> me;-) > >> > >>> [email protected]> > >> > >>> also > >> > >>> other > >> > >>> a > >> > >>> (in > >> > >>> using > >> > >>> a > >> > >>> to > >> > >>> given > >> > >>> to > >> > >>> input, > >> > >>> don't > >> > >>> can > >> > >>> the > >> > >>> ebove > >> > >>> we > >> > >>> the > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > -- > >> > > N Oliver B. Fischer > >> > > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany > >> > > P +49 30 44793251 > >> > > M +49 178 7903538 > >> > > E [email protected] > >> > > S oliver.b.fischer > >> > > J [email protected] > >> > > X http://xing.to/obf > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
