Hi all, tl;dr, so feel free to do whatever you want :) Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > disclaimer : I'm also an IDEA user now but, even though I haven't tried > Lombok in IDEA, I liked it when I tried it inside Eclipse some months ago. > > 2011/10/14 Daniel Manzke <[email protected]> > >> Just my 2 Cents. >> >> I read a lot of Lombok and found it interesting maybe for internal classes, >> but not for classes which are used by Externals. >> > > I agree with Daniel here, I think mostly of people reading the APIs and > having difficulties understanding how things work so my concern is about > lowering the barrier for potential new users/devs. > > >> I've never tried it out, but what is about Debugging? The Code can never >> fit >> if I instrument the class with other Accessors or anything else? >> To make Debugging work, I had to include Lombok in my IDE isn't it? >> > > I also have such doubts but, for me, it may only be a matter of ignorance > about how Lombok actually works. > > >> >> I personally don't like the idea, that I have to extend my IDE, because the >> one Library needs it and for initial testing, it would be too much >> overhead. >> >> I'm totally agree with the Getter- and Setter-Code. For small beans like >> described in one of the Mails, it can fit, but I think this is so 1980's. >> :) >> If you do a nice design, you can initialize your Classes, which need >> Getter- >> and Setter- with DI or Builder. >> > > Generally I am for the Builder keeping objects unmutable (no setters). > > >> In the Code of my actual Company, we did the switch to have more Properties >> which are accessible by themself, because in internal classes, it doesn't >> matter if you depend on the Property or a Method. And I never saw a piece >> of >> Code, where the Getter- and Setter-Methods stay the same, if you are >> removing or changing the Property. ;) >> >> For external APIs it is more interesting, to have speaking Names for the >> Methods instead getMaxHeapSize(). >> >> >> > my 2 cents. > Tommaso > > >> Bye, >> Daniel >> >> >> 2011/10/14 Maurizio Cucchiara <[email protected]> >> >> > Apparently it'd have seemed , but there are many Idea user like me, >> > which don't like to do without code analysis, IDE compiler and so on. >> > Furthermore, In times past, Struts developers have complained of the >> > use maven shade plugin [1] (which causes similar issues). >> > I think (though it is my opinion, this time I'm speaking without any >> > personal taste) this is a kind of barriers to entry >> > >> > [1] http://struts.markmail.org/thread/v4u4ic7m2nycltem >> > >> > >> > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara >> > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 >> > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara >> > >> > Maurizio Cucchiara >> > >> > >> > >> > On 14 October 2011 08:52, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > Hola Mau, >> > > >> > >> generally I don't like class instrumentation so much, especially when >> > >> an IDE needs to provide a such kind of support. >> > >> And just for the record I am an Idea fan :) >> > > >> > > that sounds more a personal need than a technical reason ;) >> > > Have a nice day, all the best! >> > > Simo >> > > >> > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> > > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> > > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> > > http://www.99soft.org/ >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Viele Grüße/Best Regards >> >> Daniel Manzke >> >
