click-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adrian A. (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (CLK-565) Provide Control builder / factory class
Date Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:49:47 GMT


Adrian A. commented on CLK-565:

TableBuilder looks nice because it allows a sort of "chaining", without changing the Table
I saw similar patterns, but the naming was a little different:
So TableBuilder.xxxTable() instead of  TableBuilder.xxxBuilder()....

ControlFactory on the other hand doesn't look to save much code.

> Provide Control builder / factory class
> ---------------------------------------
>                 Key: CLK-565
>                 URL:
>             Project: Click
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: extras
>    Affects Versions: 2.1.0
>            Reporter: Malcolm Edgar
>         Attachments:,
> Using a factory or builder pattern to create controls is a great way to reduce the number
of lines of code in an application and can also help standardize your application.
> There are 2 common pattners for doing this, one is the factory pattern, for example:
>         Table sizesTable = new Table("sizes");
>         ControlFactory.addColumn(table, "label", "Metric");
>         ControlFactory.addColumn(table, "value");
> The other is the builder pattern, for example:
>         Table sizesTable = TableBuilder.simpleBuilder("sizes").addColumn("label", "Metric").addColumn("value").build();
> Both of these styles have pros and cons.  Please see attached examples.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message