Daniel Pitts wrote:
The point is, I shouldn't have to delegate to super just to return the
same reference as a different type.
While that IS currently the case, I wish it werent.
As already mentioned, you can still achieve that today.
Having a base builder declared as follows:
public abstract class BaseBuilder<T extends BaseBuilder<T>> {
protected abstract T nextBuilder();
public T something(String s) {
return nextBuilder();
}
}
One way to achieve your goal would be:
public abstract class SpecificBuilder<T extends SpecificBuilder<T>>
extends BaseBuilder<T> {
public static final class Instance extends SpecificBuilder<Instance> {
protected Instance nextBuilder() {
return this;
}
}
public T other() {
return nextBuilder();
}
}
public abstract class MoreSpecificBuilder<T extends
MoreSpecificBuilder<T>> extends SpecificBuilder<T> {
public static final class Instance extends
MoreSpecificBuilder<Instance> {
protected Instance nextBuilder() {
return this;
}
}
public T doMore() {
return nextBuilder();
}
}
With the following usage:
new SpecificBuilder.Instance().something("test").other();
new MoreSpecificBuilder.Instance().something("test").other().doMore();
Or use another way (the same as above, but more "classical" approach),
which exactly matches your usage scheme:
public abstract class SpecificBuilderBase<T extends
SpecificBuilderBase<T>> extends BaseBuilder<T> {
public T other() {
return thisBuilder();
}
}
public final class SpecificBuilder extends
SpecificBuilderBase<SpecificBuilder> {
protected SpecificBuilder thisBuilder() {
return this;
}
}
public abstract class MoreSpecificBuilderBase<T extends
MoreSpecificBuilderBase<T>> extends SpecificBuilderBase<T> {
public T doMore() {
return thisBuilder();
}
}
public final class MoreSpecificBuilder extends
MoreSpecificBuilderBase<MoreSpecificBuilder> {
protected MoreSpecificBuilder thisBuilder() {
return this;
}
}
Everything in that "pattern" depends on your needs. When you need
extendability of your concrete builder, you do provide an abstract
specialization with a default final realization as an option, otherwise
you just implement it as final class only (still preserving some
extendability of it in a future via delegation to super).
HTH,
piotr
feature. Anyway, I've started working on another project, so I'll
file this away under "Close, but no cigar".
Thanks for all you thoughts Piotr. I hadn't thought of the "Instance"
approach. If I do come back to this, that's probably how I'll do it.