On 12/14/11 11:43 AM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/11 7:25 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>
>>>> All these builder interfaces buy you very very little (except for confusion and complexity). Its really hurting the
>>>> spec, IMO.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>
>> I know you disagree and its unfortunate. The spec is hurting because of it. You have different read interface (Request) and write interface (RequestBuilder) for something that is *always* available to both read and write.
>
> This is a matter of personal preference, it does not hurt the spec as you say. In fact, it seems consistent with JAX-RS 1.X where we had a Response and a Response.ResponseBuilder.
>
> As for the filters, if the builders have getter methods, we could create a single builder for the filter chain and have the framework call build() when the chain is completed.
>
You don't separate things in terms of a read and write interface unless
there's going to be a case where the thing is immutable. Plus a
ResponseBuilder made sense in JAXRS 1 because you were building
something. For RequestBuilder you not building anything, but instead
modifying something that already exists. I just view this as a pedantic
exercise to follow some suggested best-practice/design-pattern religiously.
The same reason why I think its ridiculous we have two duplicate
hierarchies for RequestBuilder and Invoction.Builder and all the
SyncInvoker, etc. complex hierarchy. All this exists because you guys
insist that it is more important to follow a specific design
pattern/methodology than having a consistent simple interface for the
user.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com