On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:57 PM, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/12/10 Claus Ibsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hi >> >> Oh the remaining minor issue is whether we should also change the >> ObjectHelper.notNull method name to be aligned with the isXXX methods > > isXXX performs a check. The notNull() performs an assertion (i.e. > throwing an exception if its not the case) so I think the names are > fine > > >> From: >> ObjectHelper.notNull >> >> To >> ObjectHelper.notEmpty >> >> As it's used in many components I didn't change the name right away. > > > notNull is fine for non-Strings; whereas notEmpty only really applies > to Strings and collections right? > > So I think we should keep notNull for doing a purely not-null assertion Yeah sounds like the best option with no surprises there.
I will refine it to notNull being purely not null and then we have the notEmpty that can be used for testing strings. > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ > -- /Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
