Timeline for Do named arguments replace the builder pattern?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2022 at 20:00 | history | edited | Alexander | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 14 characters in body |
| Dec 20, 2017 at 1:23 | vote | accept | Paul Nikonowicz | ||
| Mar 18, 2017 at 17:44 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Mar 18, 2017 at 15:12 | answer | added | rvazquezglez | timeline score: 6 | |
| S Jul 9, 2016 at 9:41 | history | suggested | jscs | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Fixed grammar in title. |
| Jul 8, 2016 at 21:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 9, 2016 at 9:41 | |||||
| May 26, 2015 at 0:50 | audit | Close votes | |||
| May 26, 2015 at 0:51 | |||||
| May 22, 2015 at 20:41 | audit | Reopen votes | |||
| May 25, 2015 at 9:30 | |||||
| May 8, 2015 at 11:07 | audit | Close votes | |||
| May 8, 2015 at 11:09 | |||||
| Apr 30, 2015 at 23:35 | comment | added | Thomas Junk | Even with optional arguments - if the constructor has more than 2 arguments, I favour using a value object to encapsulate configuration. The same goes for fluid inerfaces and builder: Anything greater than 3 would be substituted by a value object. | |
| Apr 30, 2015 at 21:54 | answer | added | codedabbler | timeline score: -5 | |
| Apr 30, 2015 at 15:09 | audit | Close votes | |||
| Apr 30, 2015 at 15:44 | |||||
| Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 | answer | added | Alpha | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 25, 2015 at 0:10 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/591756027256778752 | ||
| Apr 24, 2015 at 20:01 | answer | added | Ixrec | timeline score: 27 | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 19:29 | comment | added | user40980 | How do you handle 20 optional arguments? There isn't a problem the Builder needs to solve until it gets large. At the point you've described here you've got two constructors (and I wouldn't build a Builder for that small of a problem). | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 19:25 | history | asked | Paul Nikonowicz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |