Proposal: Deprecate Builders

[Tom Eugelink]

I see the attachment got removed from the email, so here is a download link:

http://www.softworks.nl/stuff/withertest.zip

Tom


On 2013-04-06 09:14, Tom Eugelink wrote:
> On 2013-03-26 08:07, Richard Bair wrote:
>> The way to try out the compatibility issues is to just have two projects -- one with a minimal hierarchy (A and B is sufficient where B extends A). The other project just has a main method which creates an instance of B and initializes it. Then make various changes to the A / B API and try running the main project unmodified (i.e.: not recompiled) and see what happens! Richard 
>
>
> Ok, attached is exactly such a project. Project JavaApplication1 contains LeafNode -> AbstractNodeA<T> -> AbstractNodeB<T>. Each one has get/set/withName, where only one should be commented in.
> The setter prints the class name where it is in so it is clear with setter is being used.
> LeafNode also has a special method that is called on the return value of the wither, to test it is LeafNode that is returned.
>
> The second project JavaApplication2 holds only a main which:
> - creates LeafNode,
> - calls withName,
> - call the LeafNode method on the returned value
>
> Just for test JavaApplication1 has exactly the same main.
>
> In the directory root there is a test.cmd with sets the classpath and calls the mains in both applications. You can now easily comment in/out the get/set/with and only rebuild JavaApplication1. JavaApplication2 keeps on running without problems.
>
> I also have tried to see if the wither can be moved out to an interface (using default) but that is giving me troubles. I need to figure out why it doesn't accept the default body.
>
> So far so good.
>
> Tom