Re: Method chaining

[Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>]

A place where method chaining would be good to have is in all XyzSettings
classes.

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to be clear - I'm not arguing against the concept of method chaining
> because of some stylistic / personal preference point, but from a practical
> production diagnostic point, when you need to be able to definitively fix
> the problem once, and once only. Pushing a temporary release out with
> additional logging (or breaking apart a method chain into separate method
> calls per line) that will assist you the *next* time the bug happens just
> isn't acceptable to some businesses - something I don't disagree with. It's
> for this reason, and this reason only, that we don't use method chaining.
> It's purely risk mitigation.
>
> I logged the RFE with Oracle - who knows if I'm the first to log such a
> request, or whether anything will come of it.
>
> For comparison, look at the stack trace output from a simple C# program.
>
> Regards
>
> Nick
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:37 AM, tetsuo <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Making 'void' methods return 'this' doesn't prevent you to write each
> call
> > in a new line. But gives others the choice to call it inline.
> >
> > It could be a problem if Wicket's internal code used chaining
> extensively,
> > but I find it very convenient to chain calls, specially when building the
> > component tree for a page. If you break lines in the right places,
> Eclipse
> > indents it beautifully, if configured to not automatically join lines.
> >
> > I'd love to see this adopted throughout the API, but it will break
> > compatibility everywhere you override these void methods (not if you just
> > use them). Which is much less than other kinds of change, but still... I
> > really like backwards compatibility :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Which would be perfectly fine if the JVM told you which specific method
> > > invocation on a source code line with chained methods threw an
> exception.
> > >  While you can sometimes figure it out, you can't always, and an answer
> > of
> > > "if it happens again, we'll know how to fix it" just doesn't fly in
> > certain
> > > verticals.
> > >
> > > For our production code we don't allow it, and we strongly recommend
> that
> > > our clients don't use it either.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should log a RFE with Oracle.
> > >
> > > N
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Martin Makundi <
> > > martin.makundi@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Java should natively chain all void instance methods...
> > > >
> > > > **
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-01-31 Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think it makes sense here:
> > > > > In all of Wicket's code there's a single place only, where two
> > metaData
> > > > > entries are set consecutively.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sven
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 01/31/2014 03:08 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What others think about
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5459?
> > > > >> Should Wicket use "return this" pattern where makes sense instead
> of
> > > > >> 'void'
> > > > >> return type ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> One problem that I see is with:
> > > > >> MyPage.doSomething() will/may return some base type of MyPage.
> > > > >> I remember some trink for Java to make this simpler but AFAIR it
> > > > involved
> > > > >> some longer generics signature for the class that use it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Martin Grigorov
> > > > >> Wicket Training and Consulting
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>