Creating API that is fluent

This is a very old question, and this answer should probably be a comment rather than an answer, but I think it's a topic worth continuing to talk about, and this response is too long to be a comment.

The original thinking concerning "fluency" seems to have been basically about adding power and flexibility (method chaining, etc) to objects while making code a bit more self-explanatory.

For example

Company a = new Company("Calamaz Holding Corp");
Person p = new Person("Clapper", 113, 24, "Frank");
Company c = new Company(a, 'Floridex', p, 1973);

is less "fluent" than

Company c = new Company().Set
    .Name("Floridex");
    .Manager(
        new Person().Set.FirstName("Frank").LastName("Clapper").Awards(24)
    )
    .YearFounded(1973)
    .ParentCompany(
        new Company().Set.Name("Calamaz Holding Corp")
    )
;

But to me, the later is not really any more powerful or flexible or self-explanatory than

Company c = new Company(){
   Name = "Floridex",
   Manager = new Person(){ FirstName="Frank", LastName="Clapper", Awards=24 },
   YearFounded = 1973,
   ParentCompany = new Company(){ Name="Calamaz Holding Corp." }
};

..in fact I would call this last version easier to create, read and maintain than the previous, and I would say that it requires significantly less baggage behind the scenes, as well. Which to me is important, for (at least) two reasons:

1 - The cost associated with creating and maintaining layers of objects (no matter who does it) is just as real, relevant and important as the cost associated with creating and maintaining the code that consumes them.

2 - Code bloat embedded in layers of objects creates just as many (if not more) problems as code bloat in the code that consumes those objects.

Using the last version means you can add a (potentially useful) property to the Company class simply by adding one, very simple line of code.

That's not to say that I feel there's no place for method chaining. I really like being able to do things like (in JavaScript)

var _this = this;
Ajax.Call({
    url: '/service/getproduct',
    parameters: {productId: productId},
)
.Done(
    function(product){
        _this.showProduct(product);
    }
)
.Fail(
    function(error){
        _this.presentError(error);
    }
);

..where (in the hypothetical case I'm imagining) Done and Fail were additions to the original Ajax object, and were able to be added without changing any of the original Ajax object code or any of the existing code that made use of the original Ajax object, and without creating one-off things that were exceptions to the general organization of the code.

So I have definitely found value in making a subset of an object's functions return the 'this' object. In fact whenever I have a function that would otherwise return void, I consider having it return this.

But I haven't yet really found significant value in adding "fluent interfaces" (.eg "Set") to an object, although theoretically it seems like there could be a sort of namespace-like code organization that could arise out of the practice of doing that, which might be worthwhile. ("Set" might not be particularly valuable, but "Command", "Query" and "Transfer" might, if it helped organize things and facilitate and minimize the impact of additions and changes.) One of the potential benefits of such a practice, depending on how it was done, might be improvement in a coder's typical level of care and attention to protection levels - the lack of which has certainly caused great volumes grief.

MrBlah,

Though you can write extension methods to write a fluent interface, a better approach is using the builder pattern. I'm in the same boat as you and I'm trying to figure out a few advanced features of fluent interfaces.

Below you'll see some sample code that I created in another thread

public class Coffee
{
    private bool _cream;
    private int _ounces;

    public static Coffee Make { get { return new Coffee(); } }

    public Coffee WithCream()
    {
        _cream = true;
        return this;
    }
    public Coffee WithOuncesToServe(int ounces)
    {
        _ounces = ounces;
        return this;
    }
}

var myMorningCoffee = Coffee.Make.WithCream().WithOuncesToServe(16);

While many people cite Martin Fowler as being a prominent exponent in the fluent API discussion, his early design claims actually evolve around a fluent builder pattern or method chaining. Fluent APIs can be further evolved into actual internal domain-specific languages. An article that explains how a BNF notation of a grammar can be manually transformed into a "fluent API" can be seen here:

http://blog.jooq.org/2012/01/05/the-java-fluent-api-designer-crash-course/

It transforms this grammar:

Into this Java API:

// Initial interface, entry point of the DSL
interface Start {
  End singleWord();
  End parameterisedWord(String parameter);
  Intermediate1 word1();
  Intermediate2 word2();
  Intermediate3 word3();
}

// Terminating interface, might also contain methods like execute();
interface End {
  void end();
}

// Intermediate DSL "step" extending the interface that is returned
// by optionalWord(), to make that method "optional"
interface Intermediate1 extends End {
  End optionalWord();
}

// Intermediate DSL "step" providing several choices (similar to Start)
interface Intermediate2 {
  End wordChoiceA();
  End wordChoiceB();
}

// Intermediate interface returning itself on word3(), in order to allow
// for repetitions. Repetitions can be ended any time because this 
// interface extends End
interface Intermediate3 extends End {
  Intermediate3 word3();
}

Java and C# being somewhat similar, the example certainly translates to your use-case as well. The above technique has been heavily used in jOOQ, a fluent API / internal domain-specific language modelling the SQL language in Java

This article explains it much better than I ever could.

EDIT, can't squeeze this in a comment...

There are two sides to interfaces, the implementation and the usage. There's more work to be done on the creation side, I agree with that, however the main benefits can be found on the usage side of things. Indeed, for me the main advantage of fluent interfaces is a more natural, easier to remember and use and why not, more aesthetically pleasing API. And just maybe, the effort of having to squeeze an API in a fluent form may lead to better thought out API?

As Martin Fowler says in the original article about fluent interfaces:

Probably the most important thing to notice about this style is that the intent is to do something along the lines of an internal DomainSpecificLanguage. Indeed this is why we chose the term 'fluent' to describe it, in many ways the two terms are synonyms. The API is primarily designed to be readable and to flow. The price of this fluency is more effort, both in thinking and in the API construction itself. The simple API of constructor, setter, and addition methods is much easier to write. Coming up with a nice fluent API requires a good bit of thought.

As in most cases API's are created once and used over and over again, the extra effort may be worth it.

And verbose? I'm all for verbosity if it serves the readability of a program.