hi Felix,
The return type can also vary so we have to either return Object ( the current
case) or may be we can return Value<T> instead just like the way Emmanuel
proposed to accept Value<T> as a parameter
--
Kiran Ayyagari
Felix Knecht wrote:
Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
Felix Knecht wrote:
Without knowing the exact context ...
Why is the method definition of return type Object and not String?
Wouldn't it be better to be as specific as possible?
Because we can deal with either String or byte[], so we use Object
instead. This can be re-evaluated, as now we are using Value<T> instead.
But what you return is 'String strValue'. I'm talking about the returned type
not the parameter.
