I agree with Henri that a major benefit of the current isEmpty() is the silent null handling. I would not be opposed to changing it to not trim, as long as there was an equivalent isEmptyTrimmed(), but I'm against removing the silent null handling. If I remember correctly, that was the original intent.
I'm also very leery of a major change to the functionality of existing methods. For backward compatibility, which I believe is very important, I hope we can come up with different names and leave the existing methods pretty much as is. And I also agree that Trivial just doesn't float my boat. Steven Caswell [EMAIL PROTECTED] a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." > -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:20 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [lang] Pre 2.0 - StringUtils.isEmpty(), > isNotEmpty() and stri ngsa with somespaces > > > > The only major input I have at the moment is -1 to Trivial. > It's hard to find good words, but trivial just doesn't fit. > > The number one piece of code to support is: > > if( foo.getParameter() != null && !"".equals(foo.getParameter()) ) { > > into > > if( !StringUtils.isEmpty(foo.getParameter()) { > > It reads a lot more easily, and is something that you quite > often find yourself doing in crappy ServletRequest-style environments. > > Having the trims/not's is just syntactic sugar. I'm not a big > fan of the trim, and like the 'Trimmed' method to show it is there. > > I do however like having systems that behave quietly when > possible under null. Throwing an NPE because null is just > utterly illegal is cool, such as a substring() method that's > meant to return an int, but for a boolean I quite like > returning false in the null case. > > If an object was meant to be returned, I believe null should > be returned. > ie) replace(null, "g", "q") would return null. However > passing null into one of the latter arguments may throw an > IllegalArgumentException. Or NPE. Whichever standard we end up on. > > Hen > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > Can we come up with a better name than "isTrivial"? > > > > if (StringUtils.isTrivial(hello)) { > > } > > > > I still can't recall what that does! ;-) > > > > Gary > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: __matthewHawthorne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 08:26 > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [lang] Pre 2.0 - StringUtils.isEmpty(), > isNotEmpty() and > > stri ngsa with somespaces > > > > I agree that having both is/isNot methods is convenient, but I also > > find it slightly confusing, and it adds more code to maintain. > > > > However, as long as they conform to the standard of: > > > > boolean isNotEmpty(String s) { > > return !isEmpty(s); > > } > > > > it will at least keep the code easily maintainable. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Todd Jonker wrote: > > > > >Matt, thanks for your comments. > > > > > >I guess you're right, we should probably add all of the negated > > >calls: > > > > > > isEmpty isNotEmpty > > > isWhitespace isNotWhitespace > > > isTrivial isNotTrivial > > > isBlank isNotBlank > > > > > >This morning I'm feeling like they should all be > "isNotSomething" for > > >the sake of uniformity with most other code. At least > there's only > > >one that's incorrect English (to my ears, at leas). > > > > > >I certainly don't object to the negated methods, it's just that I > > >tend to prefer the streamlined API. > > > > > >..T. > > > > > > > > >On 7/15/03 4:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>As a user I agree with the benefits of both proposals > (can't decide > > >>which > > I > > >>prefer yet). When I saw the initial proposal I wasn't > happy either > > >>but > > could > > >>not come up with a 'complete' solution either. > > >> > > >>one point on the first though, I would find in my code > that the vast > > >>majority of my use cases would be > > >> > > >>if (! isTrivial(s)) { > > >>// do something that assumes a non null / length() > 0 string } > > >> > > >>I dislike overuse of (! someMethod()), especially since I started > > >>doing > > code > > >>maintenace with the help of back browse facilities which > find method > > >>usage (rather than more fallible regexp). I would therefore like > > >>isNonTrivial(s) to be provided. > > >> > > >>Matt > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>From: Todd Jonker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>Sent: 15 July 2003 02:39 > > >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>Subject: Re: [lang] Pre 2.0 - StringUtils.isEmpty(), > > >>>isNotEmpty() and stringsa with somespaces > > >>> > > >>> > > >><snip> > > >> > > >> > > >>>I tend to dislike thinks like isNotBlank since it increases the > > >>>number of methods one needs to wade through, but adds no new > > >>>semantic expressiveness. > > >>>Also, the methods above would lead to isNotTrivial, where > > >>>isNonTrivial is much more natural > > >>> > > >>> > > >><snip> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
