On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.orgwrote:
While I agree that the nonNull methods below are useful and should be in the
JDK, I question whether they should be on j.u.Objects.
I believe that there is a whole category of methods to pre-validate the
arguments
All,
While I agree that the nonNull methods below are useful and should be in
the JDK, I question whether they should be on j.u.Objects.
I believe that there is a whole category of methods to pre-validate the
arguments of a method, such as Commons Lang Validate, or Google Prevalidate.
I agree with Stephen. There are a slew of validation methods that
would be beneficial, and if you really want to drive the JDK towards
standard validation, refactor them out into a Validation class. Look
at what Spring has written for themselves:
Jesús Viñuales wrote:
I agree with Stephen. There are a slew of validation methods that
would be beneficial, and if you really want to drive the JDK towards
standard validation, refactor them out into a Validation class. Look
at what Spring has written for themselves:
Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
If such a validation class is added to the platform, the nonNull
methods can be moved there. Until then, they can live in Objects.
At first glance, such an approach makes perfect sense. However, we
should really stop and question whether it is right or not.
One point
Stephen,
My interpretation of Joe's email was that it would stay in j.u.Objects
unless someone (other than him) contributes the Validate class and
tests. Granting your point, his choice would otherwise stand and
re-factoring it after JDK 7 would be impossible.
I am interested in such a class and
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
If such a validation class is added to the platform, the nonNull
methods can be moved there. Until then, they can live in Objects.
At first glance, such an approach makes perfect sense. However, we
should really stop and question whether it is
