We Keep Coding

What is the name of the design pattern where you have a single-value, strongly typed property container?

Looking for the name of the design pattern by which you have a POJO with public final "properties" where the property acts as a holder/wrapper for a certain type of value and contains the getter/setter for that value as well as potentially some additional logic.
This differs from the "Property Container" design pattern where you have a single properties container which contains many types, as this only holds a single value and can thus enjoy the benefits of remaining strongly typed.
An example use:
public class User extends Entity<User> {
private static final Structure<User> STRUCTURE = Structure.of(User.class, User::new)
.addPrimaryKey("user_id", UUID).property((e) -> e.userID).setDefault(() -> UUID()).build()
.addIndex("username", VCHARS_50).property((e) -> e.username).build()
.addIndex("email", VCHARS_255).property((e) -> e.email).build()
.add("password", VCHARS_255).property((e) -> e.passwordHash).build()
.add("privacy_policy_accepted", EPOCH).property((e) -> e.ppAccepted).setDefault(() -> now()).build()
.add("tos_accepted", EPOCH).property((e) -> e.tosAccepted).setDefault(() -> now()).build()
.add("registration_date", EPOCH).property((e) -> e.registrationDate).setDefault(() -> now()).build()
.buildFor(Schema.MASTER);
public final Property<UUID> userID = new Property<>();
public final Property<String> username = new Property<>();
public final Property<String> email = new Property<>();
public final Property<String> passwordHash = new Property<>();
public final Property<Long> ppAccepted = new Property<>();
public final Property<Long> tosAccepted = new Property<>();
public final Property<Long> registrationDate = new Property<>();
public User() {
super(STRUCTURE);
}
public void hashAndSetPassword(String password) {
this.passwordHash.set(Argon2Factory.create(Argon2Types.ARGON2id).hash(3, 102800, 1, password.toCharArray()));
}
public boolean verifyPassword(String attempt) {
return Argon2Factory.create(Argon2Types.ARGON2id).verify(passwordHash.get(), attempt.toCharArray());
}
}
With each entity property using the following:
public class Property<T> {
private T currentValue;
public void set(T newValue) {
this.currentValue = newValue;
}
public T get() {
return this.currentValue;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return Objects.equals(currentValue, o);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hashCode(currentValue);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.valueOf(currentValue);
}
}
We can extend or modify this Properties class and make it do more useful stuff for us, like have it record an original value, provided on creation (pulled from a database) and allow it to self-report on whether the current value of the property differs from what it was originally. Useful for determining which columns need to be updated in a database.
Most notably, this eliminates the need to create getters and setters for every new property because the Property has that functionality already. Moreover, the getters/setters are able to be overridden per-property if additional logic is needed.
I naturally ended up using this design while aiming for a more broad goal of eliminating the use of reflection/annotation processors and other black magic from my web framework. However, I’m having difficulty finding it on the internet so that I might be able to research its potential deficiencies.

This kind of wrapper "variable" is used for Observable properties like StringProperty and such. Its primary use is to hold state and have change listeners, binding in general.
It is fruitfully used, like in JavaFX. And as you mentioned, in entity frameworks. But it definitely is stateful, non-functional, mutable.
A pattern name I cannot find, and I think the gang of 4 would haunt one, if calling this a pattern, other than State.

Credit to #Michael and #Kayaman for answering in the comments: This is not a known design pattern, contrary to my expectations.
In other words, there is not a name by which people generally know to refer to what I’m calling a "Property" nor the design I’m suggesting which assumes public getters and setters are desired and uses public final fields to expose a wrapper which provides them.
This is likely because, as Kayaman pointed out, it’s pretty heavy while being not terribly useful.

How eliminate switch in this specific example

I have controller method that get data from request and based on subject variable from request decide to call a function. (for project need I cannot use seperate controller method for each subject variable)
For now I used switch but I think it breaks Open Closed Principle (because every time new type of subject added I have to add new case to switch) and not good design, How can I refactor this code?
Subject subject = ... //(type of enum)
JSONObject data = request.getData("data");
switch(subject) {
case SEND_VERIFY:
send_foo1(data.getString("foo1_1"), data.getString("foo1_2"));
break;
case do_foo2:
foo2(data.getInt("foo2_b"), data.getInt("foo2_cc"));
break;
case do_foo3:
do_foo3_for(data.getString("foo3"));
break;
// some more cases
}

While I am not sure about which OO principle this snippet violates, there is indeed a more roust way to achieve the logic: tie the processing for each enum value to the enum class.
You will need to generalize the processing into an interface:
public interface SubjectProcessor
{
void process(JSONObject data);
}
and create concrete implementations for each enum value:
public class SendVerifySubjectProcessor implements SubjectProcessor
{
#Override
public void process(JSONObject data) {
String foo1 = data.getString("foo1_1");
String foo2 = data.getString("foo1_2");
...
}
}
once you have that class hierarchy tree, you can associate each enum value to a concrete processor
public enum Subject
{
SEND_VERIFY(new SendVerifySubjectProcessor()),
do_foo2(new Foo2SubjectProcessor()),
...
private SubjectProcessor processor
Subject(SubjectProcessor processor) {
this.processor = processor;
}
public void process(JSONObject data) {
this.processor.process(data);
}
}
This eliminates the need for the switch statement in the controller:
Subject subject = ... //(type of enum)
JSONObject data = request.getData("data");
subject.process(data);
EDIT:
Following the good comment, You can utilize the java.util.function.Consumer functional interface instead of the custom SubjectProcessor one. You can decide whether to write concrete classes or use the lambda expr construct.
public class SendVerifySubjectProcessor implements Consumer<JSONObject>
{
#Override
public void accept(JSONObject data) {
String foo1 = data.getString("foo1_1");
String foo2 = data.getString("foo1_2");
...
}
}
OR
public enum Subject
{
SEND_VERIFY(data -> {
String foo1 = data.getString("foo1_1");
String foo2 = data.getString("foo1_2");
...
}),
...
private Consumer<Subject> processor
Subject(Consumer<Subject> processor) {
this.processor = processor;
}
public void process(JSONObject data) {
this.processor.accept(data);
}
}

// SubjectsMapping.java
Map<Subject, Consumer<JSONObject>> tasks = new HashMap<>();
tasks.put(SEND_VERIFY,
data -> send_foo1(data.getString("foo1_1"), data.getString("foo1_2")));
tasks.put(do_foo2,
data -> foo2(data.getInt("foo2_b"), data.getInt("foo2_cc")));
tasks.put(do_foo3, data -> do_foo3_for(data.getString("foo3")));
// In your controller class where currently `switch` code written
if (tasks.containsKey(subject)) {
tasks.get(subject).accept(data);
} else {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("No suitable task");
}
You can maintain Map<Subject, Consumer<JSONObject>> tasks configuration in separate class rather than mixing with if (tasks.containsKey(subject)) code. When you need another feature you can configure one entry in this map.

Answers of others seems to be great, as an addition I would suggest using EnumMap for storing enums as keys as it might be more efficient than the standard Map. I think it's also worth mentioning that the Strategy Pattern is used here to achieve calling specific actions for each key from Map without the need of building long switch statements.

fuzzy implementation for capturing specific strings

I am going to develop a web crawler using java to capture hotel room prices from hotel websites.
In this case I want to capture room price with the room type and the meal type, so my algorithm should be intelligent to handle that.
For example:
Room type: Deluxe
Meal type: HalfBoad
price : $20.00
The main problem is room prices can be in different ways in different hotel sites. So my algorithm should be independent from hotel sites.
I am plan to use above room types and meal types as a fuzzy sets and compare the words in webpage with above fuzzy sets using a suitable membership function.
Anyone experienced with this? or have an idea for my problem?

There are two ways to approach this problem:
You can customize your crawler to understand the formats used by different Websites; or
You can come up with a general ("fuzzy") solution.
(1) will, by far, be the easiest. Ideally you want to create some tools that make this easier so you can create a filter for any new site in minimal time. IMHO your time will be best spent with this approach.
(2) has lots of problems. Firstly it will be unreliable. You will come across formats you don't understand or (worse) get wrong. Second, it will require a substantial amount of development to get something working. This is the sort of thing you use when you're dealing with thousands or millions of sites.
With hundreds of sites you will get better and more predictable results with (1).

As with all problems, design can let you deliver value adapt to situations you haven't considered much more quickly than the general solution.
Start by writing something that parses the data from one provider - the one with the simplest format to handle. Find a way to adapt that handler into your crawler. Be sure to encapsulate construction - you should always do this anyway...
public class RoomTypeExtractor
{
private RoomTypeExtractor() { }
public static RoomTypeExtractor GetInstance()
{
return new RoomTypeExtractor();
}
public string GetRoomType(string content)
{
// BEHAVIOR #1
}
}
The GetInstance() ,ethod lets you promote to a Strategy pattern for practically free.
Then add your second provider type. Say, for instance, that you have a slightly more complex data format which is a little more prevalent than the first format. Start by refactoring what was your concrete room type extractor class into an abstraction with a single variation behind it and have the GetInstance() method return an instance of the concrete type:
public abstract class RoomTypeExtractor
{
public static RoomTypeExtractor GetInstance()
{
return SimpleRoomTypeExtractor.GetInstance();
}
public abstract string GetRoomType(string content);
}
public final class SimpleRoomTypeExtractor extends RoomTypeExtractor
{
private SimpleRoomTypeExtractor() { }
public static SimpleRoomTypeExtractor GetInstance()
{
return new SimpleRoomTypeExtractor();
}
public string GetRoomType(string content)
{
// BEHAVIOR #1
}
}
Create another variation that implements the Null Object pattern...
public class NullRoomTypeExtractor extends RoomTypeExtractor
{
private NullRoomTypeExtractor() { }
public static NullRoomTypeExtractor GetInstance()
{
return new NullRoomTypeExtractor();
}
public string GetRoomType(string content)
{
// whatever "no content" behavior you want... I chose returning null
return null;
}
}
Add a base class that will make it easier to work with the Chain of Responsibility pattern that is in this problem:
public abstract class ChainLinkRoomTypeExtractor extends RoomTypeExtractor
{
private final RoomTypeExtractor next_;
protected ChainLinkRoomTypeExtractor(RoomTypeExtractor next)
{
next_ = next;
}
public final string GetRoomType(string content)
{
if (CanHandleContent(content))
{
return GetRoomTypeFromUnderstoodFormat(content);
}
else
{
return next_.GetRoomType(content);
}
}
protected abstract bool CanHandleContent(string content);
protected abstract string GetRoomTypeFromUnderstoodFormat(string content);
}
Now, refactor the original implementation to have a base class that joins it into a Chain of Responsibility...
public final class SimpleRoomTypeExtractor extends ChainLinkRoomTypeExtractor
{
private SimpleRoomTypeExtractor(RoomTypeExtractor next)
{
super(next);
}
public static SimpleRoomTypeExtractor GetInstance(RoomTypeExtractor next)
{
return new SimpleRoomTypeExtractor(next);
}
protected string CanHandleContent(string content)
{
// return whether or not content contains the right format
}
protected string GetRoomTypeFromUnderstoodFormat(string content)
{
// BEHAVIOR #1
}
}
Be sure to update RoomTypeExtractor.GetInstance():
public static RoomTypeExtractor GetInstance()
{
RoomTypeExtractor extractor = NullRoomTypeExtractor.GetInstance();
extractor = SimpleRoomTypeExtractor.GetInstance(extractor);
return extractor;
}
Once that's done, create a new link for the Chain of Responsibility...
public final class MoreComplexRoomTypeExtractor extends ChainLinkRoomTypeExtractor
{
private MoreComplexRoomTypeExtractor(RoomTypeExtractor next)
{
super(next);
}
public static MoreComplexRoomTypeExtractor GetInstance(RoomTypeExtractor next)
{
return new MoreComplexRoomTypeExtractor(next);
}
protected string CanHandleContent(string content)
{
// Check for presence of format #2
}
protected string GetRoomTypeFromUnderstoodFormat(string content)
{
// BEHAVIOR #2
}
}
Finally, add the new link to the chain, if this is a more common format, you might want to give it higher priority by putting it higher in the chain (the real forces that govern the order of the chain will become apparent when you do this):
public static RoomTypeExtractor GetInstance()
{
RoomTypeExtractor extractor = NullRoomTypeExtractor.GetInstance();
extractor = SimpleRoomTypeExtractor.GetInstance(extractor);
extractor = MoreComplexRoomTypeExtractor.GetInstance(extractor);
return extractor;
}
As time passes, you may want to add ways to dynamically add new links to the Chain of Responsibility, as pointed out by Cletus, but the fundamental principle here is Emergent Design. Start with high quality. Keep quality high. Drive with tests. Do those three things and you will be able to use the fuzzy logic engine between your ears to overcome almost any problem...
EDIT
Translated to Java. Hope I did that right; I'm a little rusty.

ORM supporting immutable classes

Which ORM supports a domain model of immutable types?
I would like to write classes like the following (or the Scala equivalent):
class A {
private final C c; //not mutable
A(B b) {
//init c
}
A doSomething(B b) {
// build a new A
}
}
The ORM has to initialized the object with the constructor. So it is possible to check invariants in the constructor. Default constructor and field/setter access to intialize is not sufficient and complicates the class' implementation.
Working with collections should be supported. If a collection is changed it should create a copy from the user perspective. (Rendering the old collection state stale. But user code can still work on (or at least read) it.) Much like the persistent data structures work.
Some words about the motivation. Suppose you have a FP-style domain object model. Now you want to persist this to a database. Who do you do that? You want to do as much as you can in a pure functional style until the evil sides effect come in. If your domain object model is not immutable you can for example not share the objects between threads. You have to copy, cache or use locks. So unless your ORM supports immutable types your constrainted in your choice of solution.

UPDATE: I created a project focused on solving this problem called JIRM:
https://github.com/agentgt/jirm
I just found this question after implementing my own using Spring JDBC and Jackson Object Mapper. Basically I just needed some bare minimum SQL <-> immutable object mapping.
In short I just use Springs RowMapper and Jackson's ObjectMapper to map Objects back and forth from the database. I use JPA annotations just for metadata (like column name etc...). If people are interested I will clean it up and put it on github (right now its only in my startup's private repo).
Here is a rough idea how it works here is an example bean (notice how all the fields are final):
//skip imports for brevity
public class TestBean {
#Id
private final String stringProp;
private final long longProp;
#Column(name="timets")
private final Calendar timeTS;
#JsonCreator
public TestBean(
#JsonProperty("stringProp") String stringProp,
#JsonProperty("longProp") long longProp,
#JsonProperty("timeTS") Calendar timeTS ) {
super();
this.stringProp = stringProp;
this.longProp = longProp;
this.timeTS = timeTS;
}
public String getStringProp() {
return stringProp;
}
public long getLongProp() {
return longProp;
}
public Calendar getTimeTS() {
return timeTS;
}
}
Here what the RowMapper looks like (notice it mainly delegats to Springs ColumnMapRowMapper and then uses Jackson's objectmapper):
public class SqlObjectRowMapper<T> implements RowMapper<T> {
private final SqlObjectDefinition<T> definition;
private final ColumnMapRowMapper mapRowMapper;
private final ObjectMapper objectMapper;
public SqlObjectRowMapper(SqlObjectDefinition<T> definition, ObjectMapper objectMapper) {
super();
this.definition = definition;
this.mapRowMapper = new SqlObjectMapRowMapper(definition);
this.objectMapper = objectMapper;
}
public SqlObjectRowMapper(Class<T> k) {
this(SqlObjectDefinition.fromClass(k), new ObjectMapper());
}
#Override
public T mapRow(ResultSet rs, int rowNum) throws SQLException {
Map<String, Object> m = mapRowMapper.mapRow(rs, rowNum);
return objectMapper.convertValue(m, definition.getObjectType());
}
}
Now I just took Spring JDBCTemplate and gave it a fluent wrapper. Here are some examples:
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
dao = new SqlObjectDao<TestBean>(new JdbcTemplate(ds), TestBean.class);
}
#Test
public void testAll() throws Exception {
TestBean t = new TestBean(IdUtils.generateRandomUUIDString(), 2L, Calendar.getInstance());
dao.insert(t);
List<TestBean> list = dao.queryForListByFilter("stringProp", "hello");
List<TestBean> otherList = dao.select().where("stringProp", "hello").forList();
assertEquals(list, otherList);
long count = dao.select().forCount();
assertTrue(count > 0);
TestBean newT = new TestBean(t.getStringProp(), 50, Calendar.getInstance());
dao.update(newT);
TestBean reloaded = dao.reload(newT);
assertTrue(reloaded != newT);
assertTrue(reloaded.getStringProp().equals(newT.getStringProp()));
assertNotNull(list);
}
#Test
public void testAdding() throws Exception {
//This will do a UPDATE test_bean SET longProp = longProp + 100
int i = dao.update().add("longProp", 100).update();
assertTrue(i > 0);
}
#Test
public void testRowMapper() throws Exception {
List<Crap> craps = dao.query("select string_prop as name from test_bean limit ?", Crap.class, 2);
System.out.println(craps.get(0).getName());
craps = dao.query("select string_prop as name from test_bean limit ?")
.with(2)
.forList(Crap.class);
Crap c = dao.query("select string_prop as name from test_bean limit ?")
.with(1)
.forObject(Crap.class);
Optional<Crap> absent
= dao.query("select string_prop as name from test_bean where string_prop = ? limit ?")
.with("never")
.with(1)
.forOptional(Crap.class);
assertTrue(! absent.isPresent());
}
public static class Crap {
private final String name;
#JsonCreator
public Crap(#JsonProperty ("name") String name) {
super();
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
Notice in the above how easy it is to map any query into immutable POJO's. That is you don't need it 1-to-1 of entity to table. Also notice the use of Guava's optionals (last query.. scroll down). I really hate how ORM's either throw exceptions or return null.
Let me know if you like it and I'll spend the time putting it on github (only teste with postgresql). Otherwise with the info above you can easily implement your own using Spring JDBC. I'm starting to really dig it because immutable objects are easier to understand and think about.

Hibernate has the #Immutable annotation.
And here is a guide.

Though not a real ORM, MyBatis may able to do this. I didn't try it though.
http://mybatis.org/java.html

AFAIK, there are no ORMs for .NET supporting this feature exactly as you wish. But you can take a look at BLTookit and LINQ to SQL - both provide update-by-comparison semantics and always return new objects on materialization. That's nearly what you need, but I'm not sure about collections there.
Btw, why you need this feature? I'm aware about pure functional languages & benefits of purely imutable objects (e.g. complete thread safety). But in case with ORM all the things you do with such objects are finally transformed to a sequence of SQL commands anyway. So I admit the benefits of using such objects are vaporous here.

You can do this with Ebean and OpenJPA (and I think you can do this with Hibernate but not sure). The ORM (Ebean/OpenJPA) will generate a default constructor (assuming the bean doesn't have one) and actually set the values of the 'final' fields. This sounds a bit odd but final fields are not always strictly final per say.

SORM is a new Scala ORM which does exactly what you want. The code below will explain it better than any words:
// Declare a model:
case class Artist ( name : String, genres : Set[Genre] )
case class Genre ( name : String )
// Initialize SORM, automatically generating schema:
import sorm._
object Db extends Instance (
entities = Set() + Entity[Artist]() + Entity[Genre](),
url = "jdbc:h2:mem:test"
)
// Store values in the db:
val metal = Db.save( Genre("Metal") )
val rock = Db.save( Genre("Rock") )
Db.save( Artist("Metallica", Set() + metal + rock) )
Db.save( Artist("Dire Straits", Set() + rock) )
// Retrieve values from the db:
val metallica = Db.query[Artist].whereEqual("name", "Metallica").fetchOne() // Option[Artist]
val rockArtists = Db.query[Artist].whereEqual("genres.name", "Rock").fetch() // Stream[Artist]

When would you use the Builder Pattern? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
What are some common, real world examples of using the Builder Pattern? What does it buy you? Why not just use a Factory Pattern?

Below are some reasons arguing for the use of the pattern and example code in Java, but it is an implementation of the Builder Pattern covered by the Gang of Four in Design Patterns. The reasons you would use it in Java are also applicable to other programming languages as well.
As Joshua Bloch states in Effective Java, 2nd Edition:
The builder pattern is a good choice when designing classes whose constructors or static factories would have more than a handful of parameters.
We've all at some point encountered a class with a list of constructors where each addition adds a new option parameter:
Pizza(int size) { ... }
Pizza(int size, boolean cheese) { ... }
Pizza(int size, boolean cheese, boolean pepperoni) { ... }
Pizza(int size, boolean cheese, boolean pepperoni, boolean bacon) { ... }
This is called the Telescoping Constructor Pattern. The problem with this pattern is that once constructors are 4 or 5 parameters long it becomes difficult to remember the required order of the parameters as well as what particular constructor you might want in a given situation.
One alternative you have to the Telescoping Constructor Pattern is the JavaBean Pattern where you call a constructor with the mandatory parameters and then call any optional setters after:
Pizza pizza = new Pizza(12);
pizza.setCheese(true);
pizza.setPepperoni(true);
pizza.setBacon(true);
The problem here is that because the object is created over several calls it may be in an inconsistent state partway through its construction. This also requires a lot of extra effort to ensure thread safety.
The better alternative is to use the Builder Pattern.
public class Pizza {
private int size;
private boolean cheese;
private boolean pepperoni;
private boolean bacon;
public static class Builder {
//required
private final int size;
//optional
private boolean cheese = false;
private boolean pepperoni = false;
private boolean bacon = false;
public Builder(int size) {
this.size = size;
}
public Builder cheese(boolean value) {
cheese = value;
return this;
}
public Builder pepperoni(boolean value) {
pepperoni = value;
return this;
}
public Builder bacon(boolean value) {
bacon = value;
return this;
}
public Pizza build() {
return new Pizza(this);
}
}
private Pizza(Builder builder) {
size = builder.size;
cheese = builder.cheese;
pepperoni = builder.pepperoni;
bacon = builder.bacon;
}
}
Note that Pizza is immutable and that parameter values are all in a single location. Because the Builder's setter methods return the Builder object they are able to be chained.
Pizza pizza = new Pizza.Builder(12)
.cheese(true)
.pepperoni(true)
.bacon(true)
.build();
This results in code that is easy to write and very easy to read and understand. In this example, the build method could be modified to check parameters after they have been copied from the builder to the Pizza object and throw an IllegalStateException if an invalid parameter value has been supplied. This pattern is flexible and it is easy to add more parameters to it in the future. It is really only useful if you are going to have more than 4 or 5 parameters for a constructor. That said, it might be worthwhile in the first place if you suspect you may be adding more parameters in the future.
I have borrowed heavily on this topic from the book Effective Java, 2nd Edition by Joshua Bloch. To learn more about this pattern and other effective Java practices I highly recommend it.

Consider a restaurant. The creation of "today's meal" is a factory pattern, because you tell the kitchen "get me today's meal" and the kitchen (factory) decides what object to generate, based on hidden criteria.
The builder appears if you order a custom pizza. In this case, the waiter tells the chef (builder) "I need a pizza; add cheese, onions and bacon to it!" Thus, the builder exposes the attributes the generated object should have, but hides how to set them.

The key difference between a builder and factory IMHO, is that a builder is useful when you need to do lots of things to build an object. For example imagine a DOM. You have to create plenty of nodes and attributes to get your final object. A factory is used when the factory can easily create the entire object within one method call.
One example of using a builder is a building an XML document, I've used this model when building HTML fragments for example I might have a Builder for building a specific type of table and it might have the following methods (parameters are not shown):
BuildOrderHeaderRow()
BuildLineItemSubHeaderRow()
BuildOrderRow()
BuildLineItemSubRow()
This builder would then spit out the HTML for me. This is much easier to read than walking through a large procedural method.
Check out Builder Pattern on Wikipedia.

.NET StringBuilder class is a great example of builder pattern. It is mostly used to create a string in a series of steps. The final result you get on doing ToString() is always a string but the creation of that string varies according to what functions in the StringBuilder class were used. To sum up, the basic idea is to build complex objects and hide the implementation details of how it is being built.

I always disliked the Builder pattern as something unwieldy, obtrusive and very often abused by less experienced programmers. Its a pattern which only makes sense if you need to assemble the object from some data which requires a post-initialisation step (i.e. once all the data is collected - do something with it). Instead, in 99% of the time builders are simply used to initialise the class members.
In such cases it is far better to simply declare withXyz(...) type setters inside the class and make them return a reference to itself.
Consider this:
public class Complex {
private String first;
private String second;
private String third;
public String getFirst(){
return first;
}
public void setFirst(String first){
this.first=first;
}
...
public Complex withFirst(String first){
this.first=first;
return this;
}
public Complex withSecond(String second){
this.second=second;
return this;
}
public Complex withThird(String third){
this.third=third;
return this;
}
}
Complex complex = new Complex()
.withFirst("first value")
.withSecond("second value")
.withThird("third value");
Now we have a neat single class that manages its own initialization and does pretty much the same job as the builder, except that its far more elegant.

For a multi-threaded problem, we needed a complex object to be built up for each thread. The object represented the data being processed, and could change depending on the user input.
Could we use a factory instead? Yes
Why didn't we? Builder makes more sense I guess.
Factories are used for creating different types of objects that are the same basic type (implement the same interface or base class).
Builders build the same type of object over and over, but the construction is dynamic so it can be changed at runtime.

You use it when you have lots of options to deal with. Think about things like jmock:
m.expects(once())
.method("testMethod")
.with(eq(1), eq(2))
.returns("someResponse");
It feels a lot more natural and is...possible.
There's also xml building, string building and many other things. Imagine if java.util.Map had put as a builder. You could do stuff like this:
Map<String, Integer> m = new HashMap<String, Integer>()
.put("a", 1)
.put("b", 2)
.put("c", 3);

While going through Microsoft MVC framework, I got a thought about builder pattern. I came across the pattern in the ControllerBuilder class. This class is to return the controller factory class, which is then used to build concrete controller.
Advantage I see in using builder pattern is that, you can create a factory of your own and plug it into the framework.
#Tetha, there can be a restaurant (Framework) run by Italian guy, that serves Pizza. In order to prepare pizza Italian guy (Object Builder) uses Owen (Factory) with a pizza base (base class).
Now Indian guy takes over the restaurant from Italian guy. Indian restaurant (Framework) servers dosa instead of pizza. In order to prepare dosa Indian guy (object builder) uses Frying Pan (Factory) with a Maida (base class)
If you look at scenario, food is different,way food is prepared is different, but in the same restaurant (under same framework). Restaurant should be build in such a way that it can support Chinese, Mexican or any cuisine. Object builder inside framework facilitates to plugin kind of cuisine you want. for example
class RestaurantObjectBuilder
{
IFactory _factory = new DefaultFoodFactory();
//This can be used when you want to plugin the
public void SetFoodFactory(IFactory customFactory)
{
_factory = customFactory;
}
public IFactory GetFoodFactory()
{
return _factory;
}
}

Building on the previous answers (pun intended), an excellent real-world example is Groovy's built in support for Builders.
Creating XML using Groovy's MarkupBuilder
Creating XML using Groovy's StreamingMarkupBuilder
Swing Builder
SwingXBuilder
See Builders in the Groovy Documentation

Another advantage of the builder is that if you have a Factory, there is still some coupling in you code, because for the Factory to work, it has to know all the objects it can possibly create. If you add another object that could be created, you will have to modify the factory class to include him. This happens in the Abstract Factory as well.
With the builder, on the other hand, you just have to create a new concrete builder for this new class. The director class will stay the same, because it receives the builder in the constructor.
Also, there are many flavors of builder. Kamikaze Mercenary`s gives another one.

/// <summary>
/// Builder
/// </summary>
public interface IWebRequestBuilder
{
IWebRequestBuilder BuildHost(string host);
IWebRequestBuilder BuildPort(int port);
IWebRequestBuilder BuildPath(string path);
IWebRequestBuilder BuildQuery(string query);
IWebRequestBuilder BuildScheme(string scheme);
IWebRequestBuilder BuildTimeout(int timeout);
WebRequest Build();
}
/// <summary>
/// ConcreteBuilder #1
/// </summary>
public class HttpWebRequestBuilder : IWebRequestBuilder
{
private string _host;
private string _path = string.Empty;
private string _query = string.Empty;
private string _scheme = "http";
private int _port = 80;
private int _timeout = -1;
public IWebRequestBuilder BuildHost(string host)
{
_host = host;
return this;
}
public IWebRequestBuilder BuildPort(int port)
{
_port = port;
return this;
}
public IWebRequestBuilder BuildPath(string path)
{
_path = path;
return this;
}
public IWebRequestBuilder BuildQuery(string query)
{
_query = query;
return this;
}
public IWebRequestBuilder BuildScheme(string scheme)
{
_scheme = scheme;
return this;
}
public IWebRequestBuilder BuildTimeout(int timeout)
{
_timeout = timeout;
return this;
}
protected virtual void BeforeBuild(HttpWebRequest httpWebRequest) {
}
public WebRequest Build()
{
var uri = _scheme + "://" + _host + ":" + _port + "/" + _path + "?" + _query;
var httpWebRequest = WebRequest.CreateHttp(uri);
httpWebRequest.Timeout = _timeout;
BeforeBuild(httpWebRequest);
return httpWebRequest;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// ConcreteBuilder #2
/// </summary>
public class ProxyHttpWebRequestBuilder : HttpWebRequestBuilder
{
private string _proxy = null;
public ProxyHttpWebRequestBuilder(string proxy)
{
_proxy = proxy;
}
protected override void BeforeBuild(HttpWebRequest httpWebRequest)
{
httpWebRequest.Proxy = new WebProxy(_proxy);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Director
/// </summary>
public class SearchRequest
{
private IWebRequestBuilder _requestBuilder;
public SearchRequest(IWebRequestBuilder requestBuilder)
{
_requestBuilder = requestBuilder;
}
public WebRequest Construct(string searchQuery)
{
return _requestBuilder
.BuildHost("ajax.googleapis.com")
.BuildPort(80)
.BuildPath("ajax/services/search/web")
.BuildQuery("v=1.0&q=" + HttpUtility.UrlEncode(searchQuery))
.BuildScheme("http")
.BuildTimeout(-1)
.Build();
}
public string GetResults(string searchQuery) {
var request = Construct(searchQuery);
var resp = request.GetResponse();
using (StreamReader stream = new StreamReader(resp.GetResponseStream()))
{
return stream.ReadToEnd();
}
}
}
class Program
{
/// <summary>
/// Inside both requests the same SearchRequest.Construct(string) method is used.
/// But finally different HttpWebRequest objects are built.
/// </summary>
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var request1 = new SearchRequest(new HttpWebRequestBuilder());
var results1 = request1.GetResults("IBM");
Console.WriteLine(results1);
var request2 = new SearchRequest(new ProxyHttpWebRequestBuilder("localhost:80"));
var results2 = request2.GetResults("IBM");
Console.WriteLine(results2);
}
}

I used builder in home-grown messaging library. The library core was receiving data from the wire, collecting it with Builder instance, then, once Builder decided it've got everything it needed to create a Message instance, Builder.GetMessage() was constructing a message instance using the data collected from the wire.

When I wanted to use the standard XMLGregorianCalendar for my XML to object marshalling of DateTime in Java, I heard a lot of comments on how heavy weight and cumbersome it was to use it. I was trying to comtrol the XML fields in the xs:datetime structs to manage timezone, milliseconds, etc.
So I designed a utility to build an XMLGregorian calendar from a GregorianCalendar or java.util.Date.
Because of where I work I'm not allowed to share it online without legal, but here's an example of how a client uses it. It abstracts the details and filters some of the implementation of XMLGregorianCalendar that are less used for xs:datetime.
XMLGregorianCalendarBuilder builder = XMLGregorianCalendarBuilder.newInstance(jdkDate);
XMLGregorianCalendar xmlCalendar = builder.excludeMillis().excludeOffset().build();
Granted this pattern is more of a filter as it sets fields in the xmlCalendar as undefined so they are excluded, it still "builds" it. I've easily added other options to the builder to create an xs:date, and xs:time struct and also to manipulate timezone offsets when needed.
If you've ever seen code that creates and uses XMLGregorianCalendar, you would see how this made it much easier to manipulate.