views:

431

answers:

6

Motivation

Recently I searched for a way to initialize a complex object without passing a lot of parameter to the constructor. I tried it with the builder pattern, but I don't like the fact, that I'm not able to check at compile time if I really set all needed values.

Traditional builder pattern

When I use the builder pattern to create my Complex object, the creation is more "typesafe", because it's easier to see what an argument is used for:

new ComplexBuilder()
        .setFirst( "first" )
        .setSecond( "second" )
        .setThird( "third" )
        ...
        .build();

But now I have the problem, that I can easily miss an important parameter. I can check for it inside the build() method, but that is only at runtime. At compile time there is nothing that warns me, if I missed something.

Enhanced builder pattern

Now my idea was to create a builder, that "reminds" me if I missed a needed parameter. My first try looks like this:

uml

public class Complex {
    private String m_first;
    private String m_second;
    private String m_third;

    private Complex() {}

    public static class ComplexBuilder {
        private Complex m_complex;

        public ComplexBuilder() {
            m_complex = new Complex();
        }

        public Builder2 setFirst( String first ) {
            m_complex.m_first = first;
            return new Builder2();
        }

        public class Builder2 {
            private Builder2() {}
            Builder3 setSecond( String second ) {
                m_complex.m_second = second;
                return new Builder3();
            }
        }

        public class Builder3 {
            private Builder3() {}
            Builder4 setThird( String third ) {
                m_complex.m_third = third;
                return new Builder4();
            }
        }

        public class Builder4 {
            private Builder4() {}
            Complex build() {
                return m_complex;
            }
        }
    }
}

As you can see, each setter of the builder class returns a different internal builder class. Each internal builder class provides exactly one setter method and the last one provides only a build() method.

Now the construction of an object again looks like this:

new ComplexBuilder()
    .setFirst( "first" )
    .setSecond( "second" )
    .setThird( "third" )
    .build();

...but there is no way to forget a needed parameter. The compiler wouldn't accept it.

Optional parameters

If I had optional parameters, I would use the last internal builder class Builder4 to set them like a "traditional" builder does, returning itself.

Questions

  • Is this a well known pattern? Does it have a special name?
  • Do you see any pitfalls?
  • Do you have any ideas to improve the implementation - in the sense of fewer lines of code?
+5  A: 

Why don't you put "needed" parameters in the builders constructor?

public class Complex
{
....
  public static class ComplexBuilder
  {
     // Required parameters
     private final int required;

     // Optional parameters
     private int optional = 0;

     public ComplexBuilder( int required )
     {
        this.required = required;
     } 

     public Builder setOptional(int optional)
     {
        this.optional = optional;
     }
  }
...
}

This pattern is outlined in Effective Java.

Strawberry
Because apparently they are all needed and there are lots of 'em. Though if that's the case, I'd be wondering if there's room for improvement elsewhere.
Carlos
+6  A: 

No, it's not new. What you're actually doing there is creating a sort of a DSL by extending the standard builder pattern to support branches which is among other things an excellent way to make sure the builder doesn't produce a set of conflicting settings to the actual object.

Personally I think this is a great extension to builder pattern and you can do all sorts of interesting things with it, for example at work we have DSL builders for some of our data integrity tests which allow us to do things like assertMachine().usesElectricity().and().makesGrindingNoises().whenTurnedOn();. OK, maybe not the best possible example but I think you get the point.

Esko
+4  A: 

IMHO, this seems bloated. If you have to have all the parameters, pass them in the constructor.

JRL
The point of the Builder pattern is that putting them in the constructor is problematic (keeping track of order and such).
Kathy Van Stone
Doesn't the builder pattern separate sequencing from the particular steps such that a 'builder' knows how to execute individual steps and a 'director' class sequences them? That is to say it's a special case of the template pattern.
Jeff Sternal
+9  A: 

The traditional builder pattern already handles this: simply take the mandatory parameters in the constructor. Of course, nothing prevents a caller from passing null, but neither does your method.

The big problem I see with your method is that you either have a combinatorical explosion of classes with the number of mandatory parameters, or force the user to set the parameters in one particular sqeuence, which is annoying.

Also, it is a lot of additional work.

Michael Borgwardt
The poster specifically mentions trying to avoid passing a large amount of parameters into the constructor, presumably because that doesn't buy you very good compile time checking - since if you are passing in 5 ints, the compiler can't tell you if you've got them in the correct order.
Peter Recore
But there's no compiler on earth that can tell me that I should have typed `foo(5, 6)` instead of `foo(6, 5)`. The fluent interface proposed in the question makes that (marginally?) less likely but doesn't eliminate the possibility by a long shot.
Jeff Sternal
+1. Just yesterday I was reading Item 2 of Effective Java (about using builders instead of telescopic constructors), and it was also recommended there to create a constructor with mandatory params and do necessary validation inside class instance which is being built.
Roman
+2  A: 

I've seen/used this:

new ComplexBuilder(requiredvarA, requiedVarB).optional(foo).optional(bar).build();

Then pass these to your object that requires them.

reccles
+2  A: 

For more information on when to use the Builder Pattern and its advantages you should check out my post for another similar question here

Kamikaze Mercenary