<div dir="ltr">Please see comments in the issue you submitted:<div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/ocpsoft/rewrite/issues/179">https://github.com/ocpsoft/rewrite/issues/179</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>This is intentional and I think it makes sense.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Ondrej Zizka <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ozizka@redhat.com" target="_blank">ozizka@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
we have 2 perform() methods: One for the rule, one for operation.<br>
With the anonymous inner operations, this gets confusing:<br>
<br>
ConfigurationBuilder.begin().addRule().<br>
.perform(<br>
new Operation(<br>
.perform(<br>
// Nested iteration<br>
.perform(<br>
new AnotherOperation(){<br>
.perform( ... ){<br>
}// end<br>
perform()<br>
}<br>
)// end perform()<br>
//<br>
)// end perform()<br>
)<br>
)<br>
;<br>
<br>
Too many perform()'s.<br>
I know this comes from OCP. I suggest to change it there.<br>
Name can be anything, e.g. execute(), do(), wouldYouMind(), ... :)<br>
<br>
WDYT?<br>
Ondra<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
windup-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org">windup-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Lincoln Baxter, III<br><a href="http://ocpsoft.org" target="_blank">http://ocpsoft.org</a><br>"Simpler is better."
</div>