On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Georg Ragaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we really do that? So we won't get an NPE if this NPE comes from > an implementation error in the constraint***, but a valid result (false > in this case). > > I think we should add the null check to the expression like I did it: > > OLD: value.trim().length() > 0; > NEW: (null != value) && (value.trim().length() > 0); > > which is also 'simplistic' and the Constraint#isValid javadoc should > state that 'value' can be null. There are of course good argument for both cases. I think Rickard is trying to avoid that the "value" argument need to be checked everywhere in the constrain implementations. Perhaps a middle-ground is achievable by letting the Constraint declare if it accepts (or not) null arguments, and if it does not, then the caller will fail before making the call. I think in that set up, we get good stuff from both worlds - No need to check for null arguments, and get NPE in constraint bugs. Cheers Niclas _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
