I could live with #1, though I'd rather the current contract (the trim() functionality) didn't change (whine whine whine).
Or #2 is fine also, but I'd suggest another name (StringTests connotes Unit tests to me), maybe StringChecks or CheckString? Lance --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal for methods: > > - isEmpty() - true for "" or null > - isNotEmpty() - opposite > - isEmptyNN() - true for "" > > - isBlank() - trims - true for " ", "" or null > - isNotBlank() - opposite > - isBlankNN() - trims - true for " " or "" > > - isWhitespace() - true for all whitespace, "" or null > - isNotWhitespace() - opposite > - isWhitespaceNN() - true for all whitespace or "" > > Where NN means NotNull. > This covers all the cases, and takes the working premise that more > people want null to be true than false. > > > Proposal for location: > 1) In StringUtils. Incompatable change to isEmpty() (no longer trims) > and > isWhitespace() (null now true). > > 2) In StringTests (new class). Deprecate StringUtils > isEmpty/isNotEmpty. ===== Lance Lavandowska Http://www.brainopolis.com/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
