lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene 2.9 and deprecated IR.open() methods
Date Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:31:01 GMT
Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> The builder pattern and the config argument to a factory both have the
> advantage that you can limit changes after creating an object.  Some
> things are just bad to change in mid-stream.  The config argument is
> nice in that you can pass it around to different stake holders, but
> the builder can be used a bit like that as well.
Yeah that argument has been made. But I've *never* seen it as an issue.
Just seems like a solution looking for a problem. I can see how it's
cleaner, not missing that point. But still doesn't make me like it much.

>
> One way to look at it is that a builder is just a config object that
> happens to have the create method.
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Michael Busch <buschmic@gmail.com
> <mailto:buschmic@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     But, like Mark said, maybe this is just my personal preference and
>     for others not compelling arguments. Or maybe I'm missing some
>     other advantage of the builder pattern? I haven't used/implemented
>     it myself very much yet...
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>


-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com




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


Mime
View raw message