Agreed with matzew and some suggestions.
Try to enforce the chain if the **order** of the method call matters to you, returning
'this' user could call:
Pipe<Bar> barPipe = pipeline.newPipe()
.withName("bar")
.useClass(Bar.class)
.withType(REST)
.withEnpoint("my-crazy-endpoing")
.build();
Or
Pipe<Bar> barPipe = pipeline.newPipe()
.useClass(Bar.class)
.withEnpoint("my-crazy-endpoing")
.withName("bar")
.withType(REST)
.build();
--
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile
On Monday, October 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Look great!
minor things:
* newPipe() ==> pipe();
* withFoo(arg) ==> foo(arg);
-M
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me
(mailto:daniel@passos.me)> wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> What do you think about draft of Pipe Builder? =>
>
https://gist.github.com/3973193
>
> --
> Daniel Passos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org)
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog:
http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions:
http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter:
http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org)
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev