Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-102853-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB0FD6520
	for <apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Wed,  6 Jul 2011 08:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 2531 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2011 08:47:30 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2184 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2011 08:47:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@cocoon.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@cocoon.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
List-Id: <dev.cocoon.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2172 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2011 08:47:01 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:47:01 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0
	tests=SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [82.99.2.81] (HELO mx4.ciber-europe.com) (82.99.2.81)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:46:53 +0000
Received: from eusex01.sweden.ecsoft ([10.46.0.69]) by mx4.ciber-europe.com
 with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
	 Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:46:32 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: question regarding chainability of  methods current API
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:46:32 +0200
Message-ID: <7C655C04B6F59643A1EF66056C0E095EA99D06@eusex01.sweden.ecsoft>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: question regarding chainability of  methods current API
Thread-Index: Acw7uTRRCAZIn2HIRv+JezxXmo9YkA==
From: "Robby Pelssers" <robby.pelssers@ciber.com>
To: <dev@cocoon.apache.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2011 08:46:32.0461 (UTC)
 FILETIME=[349D3BD0:01CC3BB9]
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org


Hi Simone,

I have one question to the current interface of Pipeline.  I know you =
wrote a SAXPipelineBuilder to allow chaining.

But it would have been much nicer if the Pipeline interface itself would =
have been chainable.

void addComponent(T pipelineComponent);  -->     Pipeline<T> =
addComponent(T pipelineComponent);

void setup(OutputStream outputStream);   -->     Pipeline<T> =
setup)(OutputStream outputStream);

Same for other methods for which it makes sense to chain them.

This would allow me to switch from

	@Test
	public void testXQuery1() throws Exception {
	    Map<String, Object> parameters =3D new HashMap<String, Object>();
	    parameters.put("sentence", "split words test");
	    XQJGenerator generator =3D new =
XQJGenerator(this.getClass().getResource("/xquery/stringtest.xquery"));=20
	    generator.setXQDataSource(xqds);
	    Pipeline<SAXPipelineComponent> pipeline =3D new =
NonCachingPipeline<SAXPipelineComponent>();
	    pipeline.addComponent(generator);
	    pipeline.addComponent(new XMLSerializer().setIndent(true));
	    pipeline.setup(System.out, parameters);     =20
	    pipeline.execute();
	}

to=20

	@Test
	public void testXQuery1() throws Exception {
	    Map<String, Object> parameters =3D new HashMap<String, Object>();
	    parameters.put("sentence", "split words test");
	    XQJGenerator generator =3D new =
XQJGenerator(this.getClass().getResource("/xquery/stringtest.xquery"));=20
	    generator.setXQDataSource(xqds);
	    Pipeline<SAXPipelineComponent> pipeline =3D=20
               new NonCachingPipeline<SAXPipelineComponent>()
               .addComponent(generator)
               .addComponent(new XMLSerializer().setIndent(true))
               .setup(System.out, parameters)
               .execute();
	}

which basically is what you intended to achieve if i'm correct.

I know it's quite a big API change but designing the API with =
chainability in mind makes sense.

Robby