+1 with Davin in case the condition of Struberg holds. On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> > > > >
-- Thanks - Mohammad Nour - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
