RE: [picocontainer-dev] caf chaining in builder (done)

I would suggest making all the static methods into enum.
Something like 
interface CAFBuilder {
   public ComponentAdapterFactory createComponentAdapterFactory();
}
enum Builders implements CAFBuilder {

    SDI() {
	public ComponentAdapterFactory createComponentAdapterFactory() {
		return new SetterInjectionComponentAdapterFactory();
	}
    }
    ...
}

This way if you do an
import static ...Builders.*;

you can write 

MutablePicoContainer mpc = new PicoBuilder
().withComponentAdapterFactories(Caching, Impl_Hiding, SDI
()).build()

I personnaly don't like so much the all uppercase for the builder.

Erik Putrycz, Ph.D - Research Associate / [email protected] /
(613) 990 0681
Institute for Information Technology - Software Engineering Group
National Research Council, Canada - Building M-50, 1200 Montreal Road
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1A 0R6

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hammant [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: May 29, 2007 11:10
To: dev-qxt/[email protected]
Subject: [picocontainer-dev] caf chaining in builder (done)

MutablePicoContainer mpc = new PicoBuilder
().withComponentAdapterFactories(CACHING(), IMPL_HIDING(), SDI
()).build()

They are in caps cos they are public static methods (thankfully
stateless).

Thoughts on the following ?

    withComponentAdapterFactories() versus withFactories()
   CACHING() versus caching() cache() singletons() singleInstances()
cached()
   IMPL_HIDING() versus HIDDEN() hidden() hide() hideThem()

- Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email