Request for comments: Bug 6306820

[Richard Kennard]

Alan,

Thanks for your prompt reply! I appreciate you keeping this moving.

1. I would like to postpone the issues of method chaining and URI/URL 
creation to another discussion, if that's okay.
2. So what we are debating between here is...

    public UrlQueryString {
        private UrlQueryString();
        public static UrlQueryString create();
        public static UrlQueryString parse(CharSequence query);
       ...
    }

...versus...

    public UrlQueryString {
        public UrlQueryString()
        public UrlQueryString(CharSequence query)
       ...
    }

While both are roughly equivalent, I guess the latter seems more 
'normal' to me, and more in keeping with the rest of the JDK?

Just so you know where I'm coming from - I am no longer thinking this 
class should be any kind of builder or factory, rather I think it should 
simply model a 'www-form-urlencoded' query string.

Regards,

Richard.

Alan Bateman wrote:
> Richard Kennard wrote:
>> :
>>
>> So, can we agree a regular class is better than a utility class?
> That seems reasonable to me. I just suggested thinking about a utility 
> class given that this is mostly about manipulating a map of 
> parameters. Some aspects of the builder pattern are probably useful 
> here but if I were creating it then I would keep it very simple and 
> probably suggest something like this:
>
> public class UrlQueryString {
>    private UrlQueryString() { }
>      public static UrlQueryString create()
>      public static UrlQueryString parse(CharSequence query)        
> public String get(String name)
>      public List<String> getAll(String name)
>      public UrlQueryString set(String name, String... value)
>      public UrlQueryString set(String name, List<String> values)
>      public UrlQueryString add(String name, String... value)
>      public UrlQueryString add(String name, List<String> values)
>      public UrlQueryString add(UrlQueryString other)
>
>    public UrlQueryString add(CharSequence other)
>          public UrlQueryString remove(String name)
>      public String toString()
>      public Map<String,List<String>> toMap()   }
>
> This isn't too different from what you have except that the object is 
> created with static factory methods rather than public constructors, 
> it allows for method chaining, and it doesn't do the URL/URI creation. 
> For the latter I would suggest looking into adding static methods to 
> java.net.URI to allow URIs be created from various URI and component 
> combinations. Does that seem reasonable?
>
> -Alan.
>
>
>