This creates both a new constructor and a new pattern for working with drivers. If we are going to add a new constructor, I'd prefer it be adding a ClientConfig parameter. Creating a builder for local drivers feels like a lot of extra maintenance and an extra choice for users without an obvious advantage. The primary reason I like RemoteWebDriverBuilder is that it tacks on augmentation for the user.

Creating a new parameterized constructor for client config would perhaps also require me to accept all combos viz

• only client config
• driver service and client config
• options and client config
• driver service and client config
• all 3 params

I was trying to avoid this @titusfortner

I think we can support only adding one new constructor with all 3 params. If someone needs to set this, they can also create default options and default service.

I think we can support only adding one new constructor with all 3 params. If someone needs to set this, they can also create default options and default service.

@titusfortner - I have reverted the additional builder change

This is conceptually doing the same #11532 is doing. I'd prefer we discuss an approach in these cases before starting to create PRs. Ideally, we can give feedback to the new contributor in #11532 and help them get their first commit in Selenium.

In any case, I think this is the code we want to have so people can set timeouts for the local use case.

Closing in favor of #11532