On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2 June 2014 20:59, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If your builder has a triplet of ivar/getter/setter for each factory >> parameter, then it's more code and more "complicated" than a single factory >> method with paramters. IMO. YMMV. The problem here is that I do want to be >> forced into one configuration style but OTOH I do not think it is good for >> us to provide two or three styles to do the same thing. We need to pick >> one. It' bad enough we have three different configuration file syntax >> formats. >> > > The builders have setters only (which return this at the end of each one). > The fields themselves are used for getting the values. Really, the builders > are basically auto-generated setters for the most part. I think Groovy has > an easier way to do this via closures, but that's not really useful for us. > > To to follow the rest of Log4j, I could have a class with a bunch static >> inner classes all annotated with something like @TypeConverter and that >> would be it? >> > > So scan for a new annotation? Or just re-use @Plugin on the class with a > category like "TypeConverters" or similar? > Well, my point is that you'd just use an annotation. What the annotation is, I do not know. I'm not crazy about the category idea in general because I am one typo away on a late night from getting stuck. If the code does not compile, that's easier to fix. Gary > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
