From: Rajarshi G. <rx...@ps...> - 2005-09-19 12:19:14
|
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 09:12 +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: > This is not the step I would like to make, though I do want it's > functionality. The reason is that this would change the user experience > regarding the CDK API. Something I don't want to change. > > <snip> > > > CDKBuilder: > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/cdktools/cdktools/src/net/sf/cdktools > >/builder/CDKBuilder.java?rev=1.1&view=markup > > My main 'problem' I have with this design is that this indeed is a replacement > for the AtomContainer. > > What I would prefer, is something like this: > > public ChemObjectBuilder cdk.interfaces.ChemObject.getBuilder() > > and > > public ChemObject ChemObjectReader.read(ChemObject) > // like it is now, except that it will take a class, not an instance > > So people do not have to think about builders, just about data classes. I agree with this option. The interface based design is certainly cleaner and the nice thing is that it does not affect old (user) code significantly. But in the example you gave above, why would one pass a class to the read() method as opposed to an instance? Would'nt the method need to know instance specific details? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajarshi Guha <rx...@ps...> <http://jijo.cjb.net> GPG Fingerprint: 0CCA 8EE2 2EEB 25E2 AB04 06F7 1BB9 E634 9B87 56EE ------------------------------------------------------------------- All laws are simulations of reality. -- John C. Lilly |