[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4787?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17418905#comment-17418905
]
Jacques Nadeau commented on CALCITE-4787:
-----------------------------------------
Immutables can handle either pattern. The reason I chose parameterization is
that with override I'd expect there to be 300-400 additional lines of
duplicated code just in the core changes (at least methods in every rule * 100+
rules plus other rules which have multiple class levels & additional
attributes). There is also a maintainability problem with the duplication in
that if one introduces a new method on the base class, you either need to go to
all the subclasses or have a different return type for that method.
> Evaluate use of Immutables instead of ImmutableBeans
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-4787
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4787
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jacques Nadeau
> Assignee: Jacques Nadeau
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 4h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> In the creation of CALCITE-3328, [Immutables|https://immutables.github.io/]
> was discussed as an alternative to a custom implementation. This ticket is to
> evaluate the impact to the codebase of changing. Ideally, introduction of
> immutables would both add flexibility and reduce the amount of code
> associated with these classes.
> Immutables works via annotation processor which means that it is should be
> relatively seamless to build systems and IDEs.
> The switch would also make it easier to work with these objects types in the
> context of aot compilation tools like GraalVM.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
