Would it not be better to just use commons-lang:StringUtils ? http://commons.apache.org/lang/api/org/apache/commons/lang/StringUtils.html
Which has these all already defined (thus consistent) On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 18:58, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds good. By 'empty' we mean either null or zero length right? > > > On 08/12/2008, Claus Ibsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > > > Now that we have the chance to change the API for Camel 2.0 I have a > > few very minor issues as well. > > > > We have methods on ObjectHelper for assertions of null and if strings > > is provided or not. > > We currently have a mix of String assertions methods that use *empty* > > or *blank* to indicate if a string is provided or not. > > > > I think we should align and only use either *blank* or *empty* for > > "empty" strings > > > > Personally I am used to empty > > > > ObjectHelper.isNotNullOrNonEmpty(String s); > > And this cryptic name could be consider renamed to > > > > ObjectHelper.isNotEmpty(String s); > > ObjectHelper.isEmpty(String s); > > > > We could have just object parameters and if the type is a string we > > can do the cast to string and do the trim.length > 0 test. > > So we only have these two methods to remember > > ObjectHelper.isNotEmpty(Object s); > > ObjectHelper.isEmpty(Object s); > > > > They will test for null and trim strings if its a string type. > > > > Am I making myself clear? > > > > > > /Claus Ibsen > > Apache Camel Committer > > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ >
