JEP 186: Collection Literals

[Howard Lovatt]

It would be interesting to compare which was best for the case of object
literals. Do you have an insight into the pro's and con's?


On 16 January 2014 10:43, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

> On 01/16/2014 12:24 AM, Howard Lovatt wrote:
> > I don't like limited solutions that are reserved for the language and
> would
> > therefore prefer an exploration of general solutions to the problem. In
> > this particular case, won't we be using Streams anyway :). Therefore
> > solutions for Lists etc. are past their use by date :).
> >
> > I think there are two categories for a generic solution, (1) use a static
> > factory method or (2) use a builder class. The following example (syntax
> > arbitrary) illustrates the issues and relative strengths of the two
> > approaches:
> >
> > IntStream is = {1, 2, 3};
> >
> > This could be translated using a static factory (1) into:
> >
> > IntStream is = IntStream.of(1, 2, 3);
> >
> > Or using a Builder class (2) into:
> >
> > IntStream is = IntStream.builder().add(1).add(2).add(3).build();
>
> We can also use the Builder Pattern of Ruby now that we have a lambda
> syntax
>    new ArrayList<>(builder -> builder.add(1).add(2).add(3));
>
> Rémi
>
>
>


-- 
  -- Howard.