这不是坏习惯。这是一种越来越普遍的做法。大多数语言不需要你处理返回的对象，如果你不想这样做，所以它不会改变“正常”setter使用语法，但允许你将setter链接在一起。

这通常被称为构建器模式或流畅接口。

它在Java API中也很常见:

String s = new StringBuilder().append("testing ").append(1)
  .append(" 2 ").append(3).toString();

这种特殊的模式称为方法链接。维基百科的链接，这有更多的解释和例子，如何在各种编程语言中完成。

附注:只是想把它留在这里，因为我正在寻找具体的名字。

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.

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…

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。

很久以前的答案，但我的两分钱…这是很好的。我希望这个流畅的界面被更多地使用。

重复'factory'变量不会在下面添加更多信息:

ProxyFactory factory = new ProxyFactory();
factory.setSuperclass(Foo.class);
factory.setFilter(new MethodFilter() { ...

恕我直言，这个更干净:

ProxyFactory factory = new ProxyFactory()
.setSuperclass(Properties.class);
.setFilter(new MethodFilter() { ...

当然，正如前面提到的答案之一，Java API必须进行调整，以便在某些情况下(如继承和工具)正确执行此操作。