[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-8706?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17142386#comment-17142386
]
Jörg Hoh commented on SLING-8706:
---------------------------------
I think everyone agrees, that even with the best approaches and design you
cannot prevent simple errors, if the user/developer is not trained or is in
such a hurry that even simple rules are ignored.
And yes, you can write failing code with {{Optional}} as well. But my personal
impression is that it leads often/most times/often enough to rethink the usage
of a field. More often than you think of "oh, that String can be {{Null}},
let's add a Null check".
Having said that, I think that it could be a nice extension. Probably not
everyone will benefit from it the same way, but some do.
> Injections for java.util.Optional<> should be automatic optional
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SLING-8706
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-8706
> Project: Sling
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Sling Models
> Reporter: Jörg Hoh
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 2h 40m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The current approach to support optional injections requires to annotate the
> field with {{@Optional}} plus proper handling within the javacode (null
> checks etc), which can be forgotten.
> So instead of
> {code}
> @Inject @Optional
> String fieldname;
> {code}
> it should also be possible to use this
> {code}
> @Inject
> Optional<String> fieldname;
> {code}
> with the very same semantic. But the developer is forced to deal with the
> case that the value is not present.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
