﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Ayende @ Rahien</title><link>http://ayende.com</link><description>Ayende @ Rahien</description><copyright>Copyright (C) Ayende Rahien  2004 - 2021 (c) 2026</copyright><ttl>60</ttl><item><title>Troy DeMonbreun commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>I wrote a article showing some "quick example" code illustrating how to build a Fluent Interface in C#:
  
  
http://blog.troyd.net/PermaLink,guid,5cdd4862-857a-488d-a577-c6d21b548f19.aspx
  
  
Thanks,
  
Troy
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment9</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment9</guid><pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:36:55 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Ayende Rahien commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>Not enough domain, and very little that actually goes beyond method chaining.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment8</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment8</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:32:27 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Steve Freeman commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>I worked on jMock, the poster child for fluent interfaces before Martin got involved. We started with method chaining because I missed Smalltalk cascades but after a few generations it turned into something very different. 
  
  
One of the core differences is that a Fluent Interface will guide you as to what to do next, whereas method chaining is just about less typing (a Good in itself). Programming a good Fluent Interface with a good IDE largely consists of hitting Ctrl-Space or Alt-Tab or whatever.
  
  
For all the gory details, try our OOPLSA paper at http://www.mockobjects.com/files/evolving_an_edsl.ooplsa2006.pdf
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment7</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment7</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:45:39 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Andrew Hallock commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>How is the StringBuilder example not a fluent interface for its own "stringy" domain?  
  
  
So expressive OOP + chaining methods == fluent interface?  Or is it simply that method chaining is a construct you can employ in OOP?
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment6</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment6</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:43:27 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sheraz commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>If  you guys wanna see Fluent Interface in Action, check this out
  
http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/joe_ocampo/archive/2007/07/02/more-fluent-interfaces-for-nunit-behave.aspx
  
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment5</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment5</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:21:37 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Christopher commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>I don't know, I've studied the idea, thought about fluency for a system or two -- where there is the possibility for a bit of evolution beyond chaining and for greater DSL-ness -- and it still strikes me as more "cute-sy" than vital...  From everyone I've shown it to, the response has been more 'aha' than 'Aha!!'  Hard to get traction, unless someone else gets smitten with the idea.
  
  
I'd love to see someone make The Case for fluent interfaces, to show the quintessential example that makes this design pattern worthy of entry into the canon (not the kludgey SQL/XQuery/LINQ exemplar that's everywhere, which just makes the subject more confusing).  Because make no mistake, this a heavyweight design pattern.
  
  
I'm willing to be converted, though.  
  
  
Last 2c: 'Fluent' seems a decent enough name.  Maybe SentenceObjects - or Sent-a-Clause :)
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment4</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment4</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:56:03 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>PasserBy commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>Jealousy, perhaps.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment3</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment3</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:10:57 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Casey commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>I think Hammett was having a bad day ... a very unusual outburst :)
  
  
I can see where he might come from, Martin does have the odd attempt at redefining things to suit him better, and some people take his stuff as gospel a little too easily. But overall, I'm pretty sure Martin is a force for good rather than evil :)
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment2</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment2</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:34:18 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Joe Ocampo commented on Fluent Interfaces &amp; Method Chaining</title><description>Having recently worked on creating a so called fluent interface I can definately say it is alot more than method chaining.
  
  
Method chaining is to fluent interfaces :: hammering nails is to building a wall
  
  
I think it deserves it's own name as well.
  
  
I vote for “Comprehensible Interface”
  
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment1</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2639/fluent-interfaces-method-chaining#comment1</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:27:46 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>