I know that some have objected to this in the past, but I think this is a good idea.
I think that BeanComparator should work with nulls "out-of-the-box" the question arises - are nulls first or last? There is an old issue that deals with this: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18791 I'm of the opinion that it isn't necessarily straightforward to wrap NullComparator. I think people expect BeanComparator *not* to blow up on a null property value, and it would be generally easy to implement. Tim On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Henri Yandell wrote: > > Currently BeanComparator will fall over on a null, as > 'testCompareWithNulls' unit test shows. > > Is there a lot of objection to making it more user friendly and making it > wrap NullComparator instead of ComparableComparator so that nulls do not > break? > > [NullComparator wraps ComparableComparator by default]. > > Hen > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- ---------------------- Tim O'Brien Evanston, IL (847) 863-7045 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
