text-minimessage: Add a builder for PlaceholderResolvers #665
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
kezz
approved these changes
Jan 13, 2022
|
Cool! Would you mind adding convenience placeholder methods that takes primitives and such? E.g builder.placeholder(key, int), builder.placeholder(key, component), placeholder(key, string) |
|
@gepron1x that can definitely be considered after the next stage of refactoring -- I had them in initial work on the builder, but chose to remove them to match the factory methods for PlaceholderResolvers. |
zml2008
force-pushed
the
feature/placeholder-resolver-builder
branch
from
977a0bc to
e828094
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes GH-656
Should we keep the static factory methods after this builder is added? do some of them make sense to get rid of?
I've noticed some of the static factory methods use live views of provided collections in the returned resolvers. I think this is generally the wrong choice, since it could result in live state being modified in unexpected ways, and it is trivial to implement a live
PlaceholderResolverif that behavior truly desired. Does anyone have a defense of that live collection behavior?