Validate isn't a verb? On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I am not catering to static imports. I am catering towards a > consistent naming convention. If you compare our names to what exists > in Spring's and Google's API, you will find that ours are not > verb-ified. The whole static import discussion is just an additional > benefit. > > What I would like to focus on is having a common verb in front of all. > Saying "notNull" is a statement, not an action. Is that really what we > want to keep? > > Paul > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Colebourne >>> <scolebou...@btopenworld.com> wrote: >>>> Paul Benedict wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I want to rename isTrue to validateArgument (which throws >>>>> IllegalArgumentException); then also introduce validateState (which throws >>>>> IllegalStateException). >>>> >>>> We have this in a work version of this class, I'm not sure that it doesn't >>>> confuse the purpose of the class. As such, I think I'd prefer a second >>>> State >>>> checking class, so this one is solely argument checking. >>> >>> Stephen, >>> >>> I did not see anything that indicates this class is purely for >>> argument checking. Granted, the usage is geared towards it, but I >>> don't think this class needs to be limited to such. Do you have any >>> suggestions that could go into the State checking class? I think >>> adding a validateState method is simple and fits in line with all >>> other checking logic thus far. Often it's an API violation to call a >>> method at the wrong time --- the wrong time being a failure of some >>> boolean logic. >>> >>>>>> I also propose we rename the methods so that the verb "validate" prefixes >>>>> them all (Google Collections uses "check"). Furthermore, this will better >>>>> namespace the method when static imports are used: >>>>> isTrue -> validateArgument / validateState >>>>> notNull -> validateNotNull >>>>> notEmpty -> validateNotEmpty >>>>> notBlank -> validateNotBlank >>>>> validIndex -> validateElementIndex >>>>> noNullElements -> validateElementsNotNull >>>>> >>>>> I also want to introduce some new methods: >>>>> validateInstanceOf >>>>> validateAssignable >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I buy static imports here. They are no shorter than the >>>> original Validate.notNull (well one character shorter). >>>> >>>> If we are renaming, I'd suggest >>>> Validate.noNullElements -> Validate.noNulls >>>> >>> >>> The purpose of the renaming was to give them verbs. Seeing >>> "validateNotNull" is clearer than "noNulls". It's not about being >>> shorter; my focus is on readability. I prefer methods do (verb) >>> something. After all, JUnit "assert"s conditions, Google Collections >>> "check"s conditions, can't Apache Commons "validate" conditions? >> >> -1 to catering to static imports. notNull (static import now) is nicer >> than Validate.validateNotNull (non-static import with your >> suggestion). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
