Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of garydgregory@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB917RJHRWOkeP4EphYSbP1iTr+B239nt5Jpn7TsdXBh0m-=NA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAB917RL7n0yCj2Yi3FiGDvOuSnRZ3j=ms+mYTtMz6BRsjmEnfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<50ABFD1D.4020205@apache.org>
	<-4391643847510383239@unknownmsgid>
	<CALznzY54gqan63w2Zg3G-e+Qm+5ZiGpcVbEDZMF+B282mF_YzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB917RJHRWOkeP4EphYSbP1iTr+B239nt5Jpn7TsdXBh0m-=NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:29:15 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CACZkXPzb-foa-JQyPa+CY-Sgq+Dx_QuheUi8rUM63vO8mt+JOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CSV] Discussion about the new CSVFormatBuilder
From: Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303ea440c4398f04cf69454c

--20cf303ea440c4398f04cf69454c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Now what?

I'd like to release a 1.0 but we need to come to some agreement on a config
API...

Gary

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Benedikt Ritter <beneritter@gmail.com>wrot=
e:

> Maybe we first have to decide if we want validation of CSVFormats at
> construction time or not. If not, the changes of CSV-68 can be reverted.
>
> Benedikt
>
> 2012/11/21 James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
>
> > I don't really have a problem with the extra call to build() before
> > you have something useful.  It does give us the ability to do
> > validation on the object before you build it.  If we choose not to do
> > the validation at this time, that's fine, but if we ever do choose to
> > add that in the future, we don't have to break API backward
> > compatibility to do so.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Ok this is good. Let's see some healthy debating. :)
> > >
> > > What is the alternate API?
> > >
> > > To me the bother is the extra build() call, but that's the pattern.
> > >
> > > Could an alt API be used and co-exist?
> > >
> > > Is making the ctor an option? It would have to do some validation.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Nov 20, 2012, at 16:59, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Le 20/11/2012 20:01, Benedikt Ritter a =C3=A9crit :
> > >>
> > >>> Please share your thoughts about the builder.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry Benedikt but I have to say I really don't like this design. I
> > >> prefer a simpler API for the reasons you mentioned in the
> disadvantages.
> > >> The minor improvements from the developer's point of view are much
> less
> > >> important than the ease of use from user's point of view.
> > >>
> > >> Emmanuel Bourg
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
>


--=20
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

--20cf303ea440c4398f04cf69454c--