You did scare me there for a bit... :-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 7, 2017, at 13:40, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> After all that, actually, I think I found a much simpler way to fix this
> problem, and it allows for arbitrary ordering of the builder chain while
> still working properly. The old factory methods just need to add a generic
> signature as well:
>
> public static <B extends Builder<B>> MockAppender createAppender(...) {
> return MockAppender.<B>newBuilder()
> // ...
> .build();
> }
>
> Anyways, that was a rather amusing string of generics in the gist. Oh well.
>
>> On 6 January 2017 at 22:31, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So I've noticed that although everything compiles correctly, IntelliJ has
>> difficulty understanding the generics going on in the hierarchy of builder
>> classes. If you use methods from the parent in a chain, it returns the wrong
>> class, though this doesn't really matter to the compiled code due to type
>> erasure.
>>
>> However, after much experimentation, I have figured out a rather monstrous
>> line of generics that works properly. Now bear with me as we explore the
>> dark depths of Java generics and fluent DSLs.
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/jvz/dd499ccddfb6ffc0336fe0308e32b344
>>
>> Yes, it looks absolutely ridiculous, but it avoids a lot of IDE problems and
>> more explicitly lays out the expectations of the builders themselves. What
>> do you think?
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
