I end up writing a lot of ```@Bean fun springClass...

# spring

[Hullaballoonatic]

I end up writing a lot of

@Bean
fun springClassInstance() = SpringClass().apply {
    setA(a)
    setB(b)
    setC(c)
}

this syntax just makes me cry. it's a shame there can't be more constructor variants or at the very least builders for some of these classes...
it would be so much nicer to just be

@Bean fun springClassInstance() = SpringClass(a = a, b = b, c = c)

but you know.... java things.
nvm me, complaining to the ether

[Hullaballoonatic]

Technically the yearned-for syntax is achievable in a marginally hacky way:

object SpringClass {
    operator fun invoke(a: A, b: B, c: C) = SpringClass().apply {
        setA(a)
        setB(b)
        setC(c)
    }
}

but the confusion of importing this object instead of the actual class sacrifices all the readability that such syntax would offer, i think

[Thiago Nerys]

@Bean
fun springClassInstance() = SpringClass().apply {
    a = a
    b = b
    c = c
}

This notation is very simmilar to the one with constructor

[Hullaballoonatic]

often spring classes are interface implementations that don't have backing fields, so a = a does not compile and you have to use setA(a)

[Marko Mitic]

you don't need backing field for property access to work

[Marko Mitic]

whenever you have void setA(A a) method in java, you should be able to call if with obj.a = someA

[Hullaballoonatic]

image.png

[Hullaballoonatic]

@Marko Mitic
So yeah, my complaint stands in this case