As far as I remenber, yes.
Sven
Am 17.09.2009 um 09:02 schrieb Mark Struberg <[email protected]>:
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
