activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ DSLs
Date Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:18:25 GMT
Unfortunately your sample didn't show up on the mailing list…. I had to resort to looking
at nabble.

I think your example is too simple to see the benefits of a fluent api. For instance, you
haven't added an object that itself needs configuration to a collection (e.g. transport connector).
 My experience is that they make configuring anything reasonably complicated 10x simpler and
more pleasant :-)

That being said….. I'm not familiar with the ".end()" idiom.  Is this common? "standard"?
 I'd think it would be less confusing if they were .endTransportConnectors() etc so it was
clear what you were ending.

thanks
david jencks


On Mar 13, 2015, at 5:32 PM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:

> I see "fluent is easier" as a valid argument to maintaining the project, but
> not necessarily as a reason to pull it into the ActiveMQ main code base.
> 
> Still, I am 50/50 on this myself.  I personally don't have a need for
> simpler configuration of embedded brokers.  Also, the syntax of fluent
> builders doesn't appeal to me personally, so that makes it harder for me to
> buy-in.  For example:
> 
> Seems simpler to understand than (I'm making this one up - not using the
> posted language):
> 
> With that said - I acknowledge this is my opinion and welcome some
> discussion of the benefit of including the code inside of ActiveMQ itself
> (beyond the well-understood "it will then be maintained with the core
> code").
> 
> Art
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-DSLs-tp4693171p4693202.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message