> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:]
>
> 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
> doesn't.
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
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com
