I'm unconvinced by this change overall. It feels like a bit of a diversion from the original purpose of the class. I think it complicates greatly what should be a really simple, no-brainer, class.
I could live with a one arg addition, but want to avoid varargs and primitives: public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object var); Stephen 2009/11/26 Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>: > If we want to implement LANG-508 (Validate: add message parameter > construction via elllipsis notation to speed up processing), I am > really concerned with the many overloaded versions of #validIndex() > and #notEmpty() that solely differ by static argument type: > Collection, Object, Object[], CharSequence, etc. > > Because var-args instantiate a new Object[], it won't be possible to > easily create one-argument optimized overloaded versions to prevent > the creation. Such as: > public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object var1); > public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object > var1, Object var2); > public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object > var1, Object var2, Object var3); > public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object > var1, Object var2, Object var3, Object... vars); > > I am following the good advice on Joshua Bloch on this one. It's item > #42 in his Effective Java book. > > I want to eliminate the overloaded versions by type and check those > types using instanceof instead. Thoughts? > > Paul > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
