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
Joe,
Thanks very much!
Josh
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joseph D. Darcy joe.da...@sun.com wrote:
Joshua Bloch wrote:
Joe,
Hi. I've attached a file containing the methods and a JTReg basic test
for inclusion in your BasicObjectTests. I adhered to your style, for easy
Joe,
Hi. I've attached a file containing the methods and a JTReg basic test
for inclusion in your BasicObjectTests. I adhered to your style, for easy
integration. If you could take it from here, I'd be ever so grateful.
Thanks,
Josh
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Joe Darcy
Hi,
Marek Kozieł wrote:
+public static boolean equals(Object a, Object b) {
+return (a == b) || (a != null a.equals(b));
+}
Hello,
I would suggest other implementation of equals method:
public static boolean equals(Object a, Object b) {
if (a == null)
Am 09.10.2009 10:56, Eamonn McManus schrieb:
Hi,
Marek Kozieł wrote:
+public static boolean equals(Object a, Object b) {
+return (a == b) || (a != null a.equals(b));
+}
Hello,
I would suggest other implementation of equals method:
public static boolean equals(Object
The spec, you mention, refers to the instance method equals(), but here
we are talking about static helpers.
The difference between Marek's suggestion and Joe's is what happens when
the equals(Object) method of a or b returns true for a null argument, and
that is what I was saying violates the
Am 09.10.2009 11:36, Eamonn McManus schrieb:
The spec, you mention, refers to the instance method equals(), but here
we are talking about static helpers.
The difference between Marek's suggestion and Joe's is what happens when
the equals(Object) method of a or b returns true for a null
2009/10/9 Eamonn McManus eamonn.mcma...@sun.com:
The spec, you mention, refers to the instance method equals(), but here
we are talking about static helpers.
The difference between Marek's suggestion and Joe's is what happens when
the equals(Object) method of a or b returns true for a null
Il 08/10/2009 20:10, Joseph D. Darcy ha scritto:
Hi Joseph!
Of course, it's nitpicking but:
+ System.err.printf(When equating %s to %s, got %b intead of %b%n.,
+ a, b, result, expected);
has a typo in there :)
There are others similar, copy and paste errors I suppose.
15 matches
Mail list logo
