Although in this specific case, the method in question is deprecated and only there for legacy support. I think its okay to do the null check in that case if needed.
On 2011/06/07 16:00:48, rjrjr wrote:
In general we try to be null-intolerant, although I don't know how consistent we are about it. Basically, nulls should never be quietly
cleaned
up for you but rather should fail fast if practical. If null is a
legal
value, it should serve a specific purpose.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Thomas Broyer
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Christoph Kern
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > It turns out it was easier to fix the specific case this broke in
client
> > code (a test that ended up passing null for a URL). > > Which raises the question, should Image gracefully handle "null"
for
> URLs, > > or should the API docs clarify that non-null values are expected?
Is
> there > > a convention for handling nulls in the GWT API? > > SafeHtmlUtils at least doesn't handle 'null' (and will throw NPEs). > I'd rather have SafeUri follow the same pattern, whether it is to > throw NPEs or is changed as proposed here for > unsafeCastFromUntrustedString. >
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1443814/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
