I't really does not matter much but I'm with Eelco and Johan on this.
I prefer not to allow null values in the constructor. At least not if
there is a constructor with fewer parameters that can be used instead.
So I prefer to chain towards the simpler constructor if possible.
On 8/24/07, Martin
Hi,
doing a little code reading and trying to understand what I read, I came
across org.apache.wicket.Component 's constructors.
To my eyes the two constructors look very much alike and I wonder why
they were not chained like this:
public Component(final String id)
{
i think that is grown this way, previously the model constructor did some
more i believe
Also i don't like this(id,null) because thats just horrible, If you call the
constructor with the model then the model shouldn't be null.
a nicer way could be
public Component(final String id, IModel
hmmm... that would go against my taste of chaining from the constructor
with the least parameters to the constructor with the most parameters.
I'd just tend to chose the constructor with the most complex signature
as the default constructor, doing the 'real' construction part of the
object
just add a
private component init(String, IModel) which can assume null arguments
do the null checks in the constructor and forward to that method
-igor
On 8/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmmm... that would go against my taste of chaining from the constructor
with the
