As long as we don't touch beans I'm fine with it since it is much more readable.
Think only getX and isX is specified in the BeanSpec, isn't? LieGrue, strub --- On Thu, 9/17/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: small change: isFooExist() -> hasFoo() > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 4:03 AM > Hi David; > > +1; > > That is more meaningful! > > > Thanks; > > --Gurkan > > > ________________________________ > From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:04:11 AM > Subject: small change: isFooExist() -> hasFoo() > > Hi All, > > Wondering if there'd be any objections to me updating all > the boolean returning methods that use isFooExist() to use > something that works grammatically like hasFoo(). > > For example in AnnotationUtil: > > public static boolean > isMethodParameterAnnotationExist(Method method, Class<? > extends Annotation> clazz) > > Would become: > > public static boolean hasMethodParameterAnnotation(Method > method, Class<? extends Annotation> clazz) > > And then usage of it would look like this: > > for (Method m : methods) > { > if (hasMethodParameterAnnotation(m, > annotation)) > { > list.add(m); > } > } > > Which in english would read "if method 'm' has the method > parameter annotation 'annotation' ...." > > Thoughts? > > > -David > > >
