On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Nick Pratt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Which would be perfectly fine if the JVM told you which specific method > invocation on a source code line with chained methods threw an exception. > While you can sometimes figure it out, you can't always, and an answer of > "if it happens again, we'll know how to fix it" just doesn't fly in certain > verticals. > > For our production code we don't allow it, and we strongly recommend that > our clients don't use it either. > > Perhaps I should log a RFE with Oracle. > Well, this is matter of personal preference how to style your code. Nothing stops you to do: instance.abc(); instance.def() in one line! No method chaining here but again hard to find which method blowed ... > > N > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Martin Makundi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Java should natively chain all void instance methods... > > > > ** > > Martin > > > > > > 2014-01-31 Sven Meier <[email protected]> > > > > > I don't think it makes sense here: > > > In all of Wicket's code there's a single place only, where two metaData > > > entries are set consecutively. > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > On 01/31/2014 03:08 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> What others think about > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5459? > > >> Should Wicket use "return this" pattern where makes sense instead of > > >> 'void' > > >> return type ? > > >> > > >> One problem that I see is with: > > >> MyPage.doSomething() will/may return some base type of MyPage. > > >> I remember some trink for Java to make this simpler but AFAIR it > > involved > > >> some longer generics signature for the class that use it. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Martin Grigorov > > >> Wicket Training and Consulting > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
