On 10/06/2009 06:43 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Hi Joe,
I thought the point that Jason Mehrens was making was that this:
+ public static String toString(Object o) {
+ String.valueOf(o); hat Jason Mehrens was making was that this:
+ public static String toString(Object o) {
+ String.valueOf(o);
+ }
is actually pointless. Why introduce
+ }
is actually pointless. Why introduce such redundancy when people can
just use String.valueOf directly ?
Because, IMO, String.valueOf is obscure and hard to find and from its
name it is not clear it does null-safe toString on the argument. For
example, I didn't know about String.valueOf. It is much clearer what
Objects.toString is intended to do.
I for one never thought of it as obscure. Isn't this one of the static
methods one must know before taking the SCJP exam? I'm sure it was one of
the first methods I learned, back in the day.
This doesn't provide any benefit.
I think having the new method be commonly called would be a benefit :-)
I don't think having a one-line forwarding method in Objects is that
harmful.
Redundancy can be harmful in fact. Now you've got two ways to do the exact
same thing; it just makes it a little harder for people to develop and
adhere to coding standards, to give one example.
- DML
