[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13938341#comment-13938341
]
Sean Busbey commented on ACCUMULO-2487:
---------------------------------------
We can just use a static immutable zero-sized sequence. that way the readfields
isn't wasting an array allocation. or atleast there's only 1 per JVM instance,
and I believe we already have one sitting around.
In general, I favor javadocs over implementation. Specifically in the case of
teh public API it's unreasonable to expect downstream dev to read code.
> Value implementation provides conflicting statements
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-2487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2487
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: client
> Reporter: Mike Drob
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>
> The javadoc for the no-arg constructor for {{Value}} states that it "Creates
> a zero-size sequence." However, the implementation of get will error in this
> case.
> {code}
> public byte[] get() {
> if (this.value == null) {
> throw new IllegalStateException("Uninitialized. Null constructor " +
> "called w/o accompanying readFields invocation");
> }
> {code}
> Either we need to change the javadoc to be more explicit or change the
> behaviour of various accessors in the class. I would consider both solutions
> to be breaking of the API contract since we are changing what clients can
> expect from us.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
