Comments on: Fluent Silverlight – Implementing a fluent API

By: corey coogan

corey coogan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:43:07 +0000

I know there’s been much debate over what Fluent vs. Method chaining, so I won’t go into that here. But I think what you’re describing here is classic builder pattern for value objects.

By: Gabriel N. Schenker

Gabriel N. Schenker — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:21:02 +0000

@Eric: the idea of the whole fluent API is to maximaize readability and understandability. In my opinion it is justified to trade in DRY for this. It’s similar to the case when you are writing unit tests or any test. There also the clarity and expressiveness of a test is more important than then DRY principle.

By: Eric Smith

Eric Smith — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:08:23 +0000

The CarTypeExpression stuff is quite clever, but unfortunately violates the DRY principle – how about implementing a WithType method on CarExpression as opposed to hard-coding types in the CarTypeExpression class?

By: Gabriel N. Schenker

Gabriel N. Schenker — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:58:58 +0000

@yysun: this approach would be ok if a car object already existed/was predefined. But in my case I want to construct new objects

By: yysun

yysun — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:57:31 +0000

Why not to pass a Car instance in the constructor of CarExpression?

private Car car;
public CarExpression(Car car)
{
this.car = car;
}