Package org.opendaylight.yang.gen.v1.urn.opendaylight.params.xml.ns.yang.bgp.route.target.constrain.rev180618.route.target.constrain.routes.route.target.constrain.routes

Class RouteTargetConstrainRouteBuilder

java.lang.Object
org.opendaylight.yang.gen.v1.urn.opendaylight.params.xml.ns.yang.bgp.route.target.constrain.rev180618.route.target.constrain.routes.route.target.constrain.routes.RouteTargetConstrainRouteBuilder
@Generated("mdsal-binding-generator") public class RouteTargetConstrainRouteBuilder extends Object
Class that builds RouteTargetConstrainRoute instances. Overall design of the class is that of a fluent interface, where method chaining is used.

In general, this class is supposed to be used like this template: 

   
     RouteTargetConstrainRoute createRouteTargetConstrainRoute(int fooXyzzy, int barBaz) {
         return new RouteTargetConstrainRouteBuilder()
             .setFoo(new FooBuilder().setXyzzy(fooXyzzy).build())
             .setBar(new BarBuilder().setBaz(barBaz).build())
             .build();
     }

This pattern is supported by the immutable nature of RouteTargetConstrainRoute, as instances can be freely passed around without worrying about synchronization issues.

As a side note: method chaining results in:

  • very efficient Java bytecode, as the method invocation result, in this case the Builder reference, is on the stack, so further method invocations just need to fill method arguments for the next method invocation, which is terminated by build(), which is then returned from the method
  • better understanding by humans, as the scope of mutable state (the builder) is kept to a minimum and is very localized
  • better optimization opportunities, as the object scope is minimized in terms of invocation (rather than method) stack, making escape analysis a lot easier. Given enough compiler (JIT/AOT) prowess, the cost of th builder object can be completely eliminated
See Also: