Options/Attributes builders/build instances are no more "readable"

[rmannibucau]

Hi,

The main issue in recent version is the map access is deprecated but it is actually very useful to have a "template" instance (options/attributes) and copy+modify it for renders at needs.
Would be neat to get back something at least readable - best being to create an option builder from an options (resp attribute) instance as a copy.

[abelsromero]

Hard to recall all the conversation but we wanted to have typed cleaner methods that was more Java like and less like a simple Ruby wrapper.
You should still be able to keep "template" options/attributes as Maps on your application layers and then use iterate over attribute(String,Object) and option(String,Object) when converting. It will require extra code but would help decreasing coupling between arguments parsing/collection and conversion.

// Application layer
        Map<String, String> attributesTemplate = new HashMap<>();
        attributesTemplate.put("attribute-1", "value-1");
        attributesTemplate.put("attribute-2", "value-2");

        Map<String, String> optionsTemplate = new HashMap<>();
        attributesTemplate.put("option-1", "value-1");
        attributesTemplate.put("option-2", "value-2");

// Converter Helper
        final AttributesBuilder attributesBuilder = Attributes.builder();
        attributesTemplate.forEach((k, v) -> attributesBuilder.attribute(k, v));

        final OptionsBuilder optionsBuilder = Options.builder();
        optionsTemplate.forEach((k, v) -> optionsBuilder.option(k, v));

        final Options optionsToPass = optionsBuilder.attributes(attributesBuilder.build())
                .build();

[rmannibucau]

I can see that but it is quite inconvenient and technically it is still a map so instance -> builder should be easily doable, no? Most important is an easy api after all IMHO.

[abelsromero]

Working on removing the @Deprecated methods for v3.0.x I want to maintain the minimum for this.
So far I was thinking in maintaining the methods that return the underlying Map<String,Object>, but nothing else. When you said "map access" did you mean to maintain the constructors and setters with Map<String,Object>?

[rmannibucau]

Only read part, factory is easy to workaround.

[ancore]

Having access to the map (or contained attributes) is also very useful for unit testing of code that produces Attributes and Options.