At 07:20 PM 8/5/2005, you wrote:
On Saturday 06 August 2005 00:17, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Although technically possible to fold the Object[] argument in to
> Object, wouldn't it be clearer to users if the Object[] form was
> available *explicitly* as an additional method?
>
> What proportion of java developers do not know that Object[] can be
> cast as an Object? If as I suspect many developers ignore the
> possibility, wouldn't the cost of the extra 8 (=2 x 4) methods offset
> by the gain in clarity?
I think I possibly can agree that it makes sense. I am normally pro-clarity
:o)
Interesting to note that 8 new methods here == "not much for a bit of
documentation in code", and a single convenience method over at OSGi folks is
a "no no", with the argument that all constrained implementations will suffer
as a result.
I see what you are saying. Maybe the OSGi folks have constrained
implementations whereas SLF4J does not have any for the moment. Of course,
it will be an entirely different ball game when such implementations start
to appear.
Cheers
Niclas
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
