我同意所有声称这破坏了JavaBeans规范的帖子。有理由保留这一点，但我也觉得使用这个构建器模式(上面提到的)有它的一席之地;只要不是到处都用，就应该是可以接受的。对我来说，“It’s Place”的终点是对“build()”方法的调用。

There are other ways of setting all these things of course, but the advantage here is that it avoids 1) many-parameter public constructors and 2) partially-specified objects. Here, you have the builder collect what's needed and then call its "build()" at the end, which can then ensure that a partially-specified object is not constructed, since that operation can be given less-than-public visibility. The alternative would be "parameter objects", but that IMHO just pushes the problem back one level.

我不喜欢多形参构造函数，因为它们更有可能传入大量相同类型的实参，从而更容易将错误的实参传递给形参。我不喜欢使用大量的setter，因为对象可以在完全配置之前使用。此外，使用“build()”方法更好地实现基于先前选择的默认值的概念。

总之，我认为这是一个很好的实践，如果使用得当。

因为它不返回void，所以它不再是一个有效的JavaBean属性setter。如果您是世界上使用可视化“Bean Builder”工具的7个人之一，或者是使用JSP-bean-setProperty元素的17个人之一，那么这可能很重要。

总结:

它被称为“流畅接口”或“方法链接”。 这不是“标准”Java，尽管你现在看到的越来越多(在jQuery中工作得很好) 它违反了JavaBean规范，因此它将与各种工具和库分开，特别是JSP构建器和Spring。 它可能会阻止JVM通常会做的一些优化 一些人认为它能清理代码，另一些人认为它“可怕”

还有一些没有提到的要点:

This violates the principal that each function should do one (and only one) thing. You may or may not believe in this, but in Java I believe it works well. IDEs aren't going to generate these for you (by default). I finally, here's a real-world data point. I have had problems using a library built like this. Hibernate's query builder is an example of this in an existing library. Since Query's set* methods are returning queries, it's impossible to tell just by looking at the signature how to use it. For example: Query setWhatever(String what); It introduces an ambiguity: does the method modify the current object (your pattern) or, perhaps Query is really immutable (a very popular and valuable pattern), and the method is returning a new one. It just makes the library harder to use, and many programmers don't exploit this feature. If setters were setters, it would be clearer how to use it.

它不仅打破了getter /setter的惯例，还打破了Java 8方法参考框架。MyClass::setMyValue是一个BiConsumer<MyClass,MyValue>， myInstance::setMyValue是一个Consumer<MyValue>。如果你让你的setter返回这个，那么它就不再是Consumer<MyValue>的有效实例，而是Function<MyValue,MyClass>，并且会导致任何使用这些setter的方法引用(假设它们是void方法)的事情中断。

第一眼看到:“可怕!”

进一步思考

list.add(new Employee().setName("Jack Sparrow").setId(1).setFoo("bacon!"));

实际上更不容易出错

Employee anEmployee = new Employee();
anEmployee.setName("xxx");
...
list.add(anEmployee);

非常有趣。添加想法toolbag…

如果可用，最好使用其他语言结构。例如，在Kotlin中，您可以使用with、apply或let。如果使用这种方法，实际上不需要从setter返回实例。

这种方法允许你的客户端代码:

对返回类型漠不关心 更容易维护 避免编译器的副作用

这里有一些例子。

val employee = Employee().apply {
   name = "Jack Sparrow"
   id = 1
   foo = "bacon"
}


val employee = Employee()
with(employee) {
   name = "Jack Sparrow"
   id = 1
   foo = "bacon"
}


val employee = Employee()
employee.let {
   it.name = "Jack Sparrow"
   it.id = 1
   it.foo = "bacon"
}