He is just saying he doesn't want to rewrite the cases that do not have 
a null check.

Please re-read yourself ;)

Manuel Barzi schreef:
>> and where we just do this "".equals(value) without testing for null
>> i will not rewrite those by first testing null to be able to call for
>> length.
> This is wrong, we never said so. Just meant switching from
> [nullability-check] && !"".equals(value) to [nullability-check] &&
> value.length() != 0... ONLY THOSE DUETS!
> Re-read it, you will see.

Erik van Oosten

Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
Wicket-user mailing list

Reply via email to