Re: Needs help in editing

From:

Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:35:51 -0400

Message-ID:

<iu8573$b8e$1@news.albasani.net>

A??ris wrote:

Lew a ??crit :

Reflection is mostly avoidable. A little light use of
'Class#newInstance()' with package-private builders called by a factory
method isn't very risky and avoids the typical mad craziness of looking
up 'Method' or 'Constructor' instances. If you're going down that
latter route, leave programming to those better equipped for it.

This is what I say???
On clean code, Class#newInstance + setter avoid reflection.
But on the craps given code, empty constructor is not available, so
Class#newInstance is not usable in this case???

I note that you make no effort to evaluate my suggestion against yours for
their relative merits.

You can use the existing type that has no no-arg constructor by using a
builder inside a factory method. No weird reflection needed - just a builder
that knows how to construct the target object.

Since the builder is a *new* type, your comment that it doesn't have this or
that is ridiculous. You create the builder with a no-arg constructor and
build what you need, returning an instance of the target type to the factory
method.

How about you speak to that suggestion, hm?

--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg