Yes, Lombok should be best for using with a Camel application, but not necessary so for the framework/library code of Camel itself. Code simplicity is great but sometimes being explicit wins over magical simplicity. As an object-oriented programmer, if we need getters/setters in the code I think it's already somewhat losing. Ideally we should be able to live without getters/setters, but if it's unavoidable then in my opinionated view it's less important whether it's implicit or not.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 7:36 AM Vyacheslav Boyko <[email protected]> wrote: > Lombok have advantages and disadvantages both. > With bringing reducing of annoying boilerplate it brings its "magic" of > underlying code generation which could be understood only by having some > level of practice using Lobmok. For example, deserialization troubles > when a constructor have more than one parameter with the same type (it > needs to be annotated with @Creator or @ConstructorProperties). I guess, > the maintainers of Camel don't want to be involved into such issues. > > On 11/3/21 00:35, Steve973 wrote: > > You see no advantage in getting boilerplate code for free, and keeping > your > > beans, etc, free from accessors/mutators, no arg constructors, all arg > > constructors, getting a builder for free, and lots of other stuff? I can > > see avoiding it in a project for particular reasons, but most of the > > "favorite" frameworks reduce a lot of boilerplate code, and Camel is > > included in that. I'm not arguing, but I really am curious why you see > no > > advantage. That is, of course, if it's appropriate to have this > > conversation here, on this list. > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:31 PM Andrea Cosentino <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> There is no problem with license. Personally i never find any advantage > in > >> using Lombok. > >> > >> Il mar 2 nov 2021, 21:23 Steve973 <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >> > >>> Hello. I normally use lombok to take care of boiler plate code in > >> projects > >>> that I work on. I have noticed that lombok is not used in the camel > code > >>> base. Is there something about it (licensing or something else) that > >> makes > >>> it unsuitable for camel? I am working on something in camel-core, and > it > >>> would be great to be able to use it to keep things cleaner. But I > would > >>> think that if it was acceptable in an apache project, people would > >> already > >>> be using it. Does anyone have the details on this? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Steve > >>> > -- Tadayoshi Sato
