Order dependence is fine if the fluent interface verbs imply ordering
(appendXXX) rather than not (setXXX). But some of the parts of a URI are
order-independent (e.g., scheme), even if others are not (e.g., path
component). I see no reason to impose an order on the order-independent
parts.
Abstractly, though, would you rather see ReferenceBuilderException checked
or unchecked in the following:
try {
Reference ref = ReferenceBuilder.appendBar
("myBar").appendFoo("myFoo");
// do something with ref
} catch (ReferenceBuilderException e) {
// myBad: foo must come before bar
// clean up
// ? throw e;
}
Programmer was wrong -- this should be unchecked, right?
--tim
On Nov 29, 2007 7:32 PM, Rob Heittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh, no, I'm about to agree unconditionally with Paul. :-)
>
> > Why should it enforce the order? The burden should be on the
> > implementor, not the user. Don't use a StringBuilder: use simple
> > fields:
>
> > class URI {
> > private String scheme;
> > private String host;
> > // ...
> > }
>
> Yeah, that. The warnings to the user (cough Checked Exceptions /cough)
> should come in when you try to confess the builder into a URI, Reference, or
> String and it doesn't contain enough pieces and parts to have meaning.
>
> - R
>
>
