Re: [windup-dev] Rules API

1) The (when, perform) structure would be basic for all rules? Yes, there are actually a few more structures: .addRule() .when() // if .perform() // then .otherwise() // else 2) This seems like it will build object tree, which will then be processed, right? No space for custom code? You can already do exactly what you just suggested :) Custom code is no problem, it just accepts an object like any normal Java code - it's just Java. 3) Isn't that a fluent API overuse? How about something like: I don't know what you are referring to here as overuse, but yes, I am exaggerating the use of the fluent API to make a point. The rules could be completely un-fluent and still use these same APIs. I'm not sure I see the point/difference of the sample you've shown. 4) .withDoctype("http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0") ? doctype is a property... Better .with(PropNames.DOCTYPE, "http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0") ? I agree, some kind of more general structure here would probably be better. 5) Could the variable be filled outside .when () ? But perhaps just a matter of taste. Absolutely you could - and yes, it's all a matter of taste :) On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Ondrej Zizka <ozizka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > WRT rules API, as proposed at > > https://github.com/windup/windup/blob/master/engine/config/api/src/main/j... > > It's nice, with some comments. > > I know it was typed in a hurry, but anyway: > > 1) The (when, perform) structure would be basic for all rules? > > 2) This seems like it will build object tree, which will then be > processed, right? No space for custom code? > > 3) Isn't that a fluent API overuse? How about something like: > > new ConfigBuilder( ... ){{ > addRule( new MavenPomRule( this, ... ){ > boolean when( ) { return Selection.exists(XMLFile.class, > "xmls").with("doctype", DOCTYPE_POM); } > void perform( MavenPomInfo mpi ){ ... } > } > ); > }}.run(); > > It's verbose now but with Java 8 lambdas, it would be less. > > While it's a bit more verbose, it would have obvious benefits of better > debuggability, and would better leverage Java's features like > inheritance (imagine AbstractXmlFileRule and it's subclasses for > whatever one would want to do with a XML file, having few of its > properties passed as parameters. > > Btw this code above is inspired by Wicket and GWT. > > 4) .withDoctype("http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0") ? > doctype is a property... Better .with(PropNames.DOCTYPE, > "http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0") ? > > 5) Could the variable be filled outside .when () ? But perhaps just a > matter of taste. > > More later when we have some more examples. > > Nice! > Ondra > _______________________________________________ > windup-dev mailing list > windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev > -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.org "Simpler is better."