Re: Builder pattern

2016-11-14 Thread Matt Sicker
I'd support deprecating the with methods and making set methods the canonical one. As for is versus get, is it because some of them return Boolean rather than boolean? I generally prefer the is prefix for boolean and avoid using Boolean whenever possible. On 14 November 2016 at 17:37, Gary Gregor

Re: Builder pattern

2016-11-14 Thread Gary Gregory
I marked existing methods @Deprecated. I did not delete anything in order to avoid breaking BC as much as possible. I'd like to change the existing Builders that use "with" to "set". This would not break config files but it would break code. Is it over the top to deprecate the "with" methods and a

Re: Builder pattern

2016-11-14 Thread Remko Popma
Of course only for the Builders that were published as of 2.7. The Builders we're adding in 2.8 can just use set. Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Nov 2016, at 8:26, Remko Popma wrote: > > Are Builders used by users for custom plugins? > Should we deprecate and keep the old methods around for a wh

Re: Builder pattern

2016-11-14 Thread Remko Popma
Are Builders used by users for custom plugins? Should we deprecate and keep the old methods around for a while to avoid breaking user code? Remko Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Nov 2016, at 5:22, Matt Sicker wrote: > > I like using set instead of with for builders. I've only been using with > m

Re: Builder pattern

2016-11-14 Thread Matt Sicker
I like using set instead of with for builders. I've only been using with methods lately for constructing modified copies of the current object which doesn't exactly fit the builder idea (since the builder is modified and not copied). I've also used builders without any prefix, but that would look r