Lists Home |
Date Index |
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Interestingly, this is is one the philosophic differences between XOM
> and JDOM. JDOM allows method chaining. XOM does not. To some extent,
> this design choice has been heavily influenced by my work with
> JavaBeans, where a method that doesn't return void isn't recognized
> as a setter method. I'm not sure if that has any true relevance here,
> but it's definitely influenced me as to what feels right and what
If you look at the 1.2 collections API, you find that methods do on
occasion return when there are side effects on the underlying data
structure. For example, a remove(key) call will return the removed
value. So I think there's an argument to be had that it's reasonable for
an append() call, which changes the underlying data structure to return
a value. See Map.put() for an example, but be aware that returning true
or false is also an option; see Collection.add() for an example of that.
Following the bean practice doesn't work for me because it is optimised
to get/set on fields (the structure is flat), not manipulate a headed
list (a tree structure).
> And my third problem is that I just think it looks too damn ugly! I
> can't read it. I can't follow it, even with good indenting.
As good a reason as any.
Bill de hÓra