Hi Sean,
I am concerned about abandoning the fluent style of
configuration as I found
this a tremendous advantage and selling point of the
architecture. It is a very
good thing to be able to examine one Java file and see the
entire application
layout before you. It is also nice to
Hi Sean,
Honestly I didn't like the fluent builder because (apart from
aesthetically unpleasing upRouter() and a little hack of
owner().start())
a) problem with multiline statements (including compromised
readability). And to fit it all on a single line would mean unecessary
tinkering with
Like methods, we don't know in advance the list of all protocols. Someone
could decide to write a connector for some custom or new protocol and we
should still allow it.
However, we could restrict the protocol name to not include spaces for
example (bad for XSD lists) and restrict the allowed
On 11/10/06, Sean Landis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you validate the code even before it is run? (Atleast with
XML I can have an XML schema that'll stop me from making obvious
mistakes.)
Having spent the last two weeks banging my head against XML schemas, I don't
find validation a
Dave Pawson dave.pawson at gmail.com writes:
and maintainability are very important. We use the fluent style in other
projects it has served us well. It seems to resonate here.
May I suggest this is a personal preference too?
Absolutely. After all, style is it's last name. ;-)
Sean
5 matches
Mail list logo
