I’ve got a `class Foo` and a `class FooBuilder`. t...

# getting-started

[y]

I’ve got a class Foo and a class FooBuilder. the FooBuilder takes some parameters and tries to construct a Foo. then I can make a constructor in Foo that takes a FooBuilder.

now what I’d like to do is disallow creating a FooBuilder from outside the file (to avoid exposing the implementation and to avoid intermediate state and to avoid writing private everywhere in FooBuilder), and then have a function that creates a FooBuilder, and returns the result of the build (maybe Foo.companion.invoke)

but now I have to put the FooBuilder definition inside Foo, or else I’m exposing the private-in-file class FooBuilder. but that adds an extra indentation level and massive amounts of unrelated code to Foo. is there any other way?

[ephemient]

just make class FooBuilder internal constructor() if you don't want it constructed externally?

[y]

oh, nice! other than still having to annotate everything in FooBuilder as private, this solves it. thanks.

[y]

is there a @Suppress annotation I can use for the class to silence the could be private warnings?

[ephemient]

that's not a compiler warning, is it?

[y]

ah, maybe I’m wrong and it’s an IntelliJ thing?

[ephemient]

I know there's Detekt rules for that, I don't touch the IDE a whole ton so I'm not sure what its inspections are

[Stephan Schröder]

Are you sure you even need a FooBuilder? The pattern makes sense in Java, but in Kotlin constructors have named and optional parameters.
So if you have a FooBuilder because you started of with a Java codebase you might want to simply replace the whole pattern which said advanced constructors.

[y]

in this case, I do. I'm not using the builder to cover up an abundance of optional parameters. I'm doing it because there is a (very) non-trivial amount of initialization to do. the Foo is pretty much just the result of the computation

[y]

I think Builder may be a misleading name here

[Stephan Schröder]

it*s all good. I just recently wrote a blog post arguing that you don't need Builders in Kotlin 😅 Of course I was thinking about DTOs with @Lombok annotations.

[andylamax]

I might be out of context. But I find myself needing Builders for Java consumers.

[ephemient]

they're also better for maintaining binary compatibility

[Goetz Markgraf]

You can make your builder a function in the Foo companion object that takes a lambda that uses a builder- or configuration-object as a receiver.

class Foo {
 ...
 companion object {
    fun build (FooBuilder.() -> Unit) : Foo {
      ...
    }
  }
}

The constructor of FooBuilder can be private because no-one than this build-function is ever creating an instance of it.

[ephemient]

@Stephan Schröder adding a parameter is a binary compatibility break, even if it's optional, even with @JvmOverloads. see https://jakewharton.com/public-api-challenges-in-kotlin/:

Even if you are only appending properties to avoid breaking the component functions, these two signatures always change.

[ephemient]

real-world example: https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.serialization/releases/tag/1.0.0-RC kotlinx.serialization went from JsonConfiguration(...) to Json(JsonBuilder.() -> Unit) pre-1.0 to ensure that that they could continue to evolve post-1.0