Builder pattern naming #112
Comments
|
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I am cautious of making a breaking change. I've had 3 breaking releases in the past 3 or so months, and I'm not sure the benefits of this rename would outweigh the annoyance of another breakage. Happy to keep it in mind for the future though. |
|
Actually, what I'd probably prefer to do is add a Though I am still a little cautious of doing that - I'd prefer to avoid making a release thats only purpose is to deprecate that function. But once some other releasable changes come along I think I'd be fine including the deprecation along with them. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I have a very simple proposal for a small change to the builder pattern naming.
I had no idea that I could use a builder to customize the client until I started looking into the code.
Most implementations include a
buildermethod that returns the builder, then abuildfunction that generates an instance of the (built) class.Because the
builderfunction returns an instance of the builder and thebuildmethod returns an instance of the "buit" class, there is a distinction between the two.To help new users understand that the client is not
builtdirectly but rather provides abuilderthat must subsequently be invoked with thebuildfunction in order to return an instance of the class, I suggest renaming this tobuilder.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: