commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benedikt Ritter <benerit...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [csv] Why does CSVFormat provide a validate() method instead of validating parameters passed to its constructor?
Date Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:32:48 GMT
Am 16. März 2012 23:36 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>:
> Choice is good I agree. Commons CSV will also support annotated POJO, that
> will give two ways to use the API.
>

Are we still talking about how to create CSVFormat instances?

Benedikt

> Emmanuel Bourg
>
>
> Le 16/03/2012 22:26, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> whatever name/pattern is called what we intend to apply, the result
>> doesn't change :P
>>
>> Jokes a part, given the past experience of Digester3, as reported by
>> Matt and James, I can suggest you to not limit to users the
>> possibilities to chose their preferred approaches.
>>
>> Digester3 - which of course has a larger set of APIs - allows users
>> configuring it with four APIs set:
>>
>>  * plain old Digester2.X addRule() alike methods;
>>  * the RulesBinder fluent APIs;
>>  * Annotated POJOs, built on top of RulesBinder;
>>  * XML descriptors, built on top of RulesBinder.
>>
>> no restrictions - just provide the n API layers that users want/need
>> on top of one in order to centralize the errors and make them
>> satisfied (which is he most important side, IMHO).
>> When developing Digester3, I wondered who would have used the xmlrules
>> today: pooff, magically a users not only is using it, he's also
>> contributing on making it betetr on supporting multi-thread
>> environments.
>>
>> So, concluding: instead of choosing which approach has to be applied,
>> just apply both as Seb is proposing.
>> Just my 0.02 cents,
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM, James Carman
>> <jcarman@carmanconsulting.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Did I say they were the same?
>>> On Mar 16, 2012 12:22 PM, "Emmanuel Bourg"<ebourg@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 16/03/2012 13:34, James Carman a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for builder pattern and fluent API
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fluent API != Builder Pattern
>>>>
>>>> They are similar because they use method chaining, but that's not
>>>> equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://martinfowler.com/bliki/**FluentInterface.html<http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FluentInterface.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Fluent_interface<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Builder_pattern<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder_pattern>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message