You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@velocity.apache.org by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de> on 2006/11/30 09:26:27 UTC
Re: svn commit: r480849 -
nbubna@apache.org writes:
>+ public Map getToolbox()
>+ {
>+ if (this.toolbox != null)
>+ {
>+ return Collections.unmodifiableMap(this.toolbox);
>+ }
Wouldn't it be better (and probably remove a lot of these tests) to make sure
that the toolbox can never be null (but contains an empty List?).
>+ return null;
> }
I'd prefer Collections.EMPTY_LIST. Removes the necessity of always
checking for null.
Best regards
Henning
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r480849 -
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
"Nathan Bubna" <nb...@gmail.com> writes:
Hm. Yes, that is a reason but it sounds a bit "dragged by the hair" to
me. An empty toolbox does not behave any different from a "non
existing toolbox" at all, so why keeping the difference artificially
alife?
Having a contract that ensures that the object is never null, allows
you to remove a number of "is null" checks from the code, thus
actually speeding up the often used pathes.
Best regards
Henning
>technically, it would be an empty map not empty list, but even so, i'm
>not sure about this. if we can say for sure that no one (especially
>us) will ever want to tell the difference between an empty toolbox and
>no toolbox being set, then it would be marginally simpler to ensure
>that toolbox is never null.
>at this point, it's not a great burden to always test for the
>toolbox's presence and potentially provides more a more useful
>interface.
>in other words, i'll think about this...
>On 11/30/06, Henning P. Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de> wrote:
>> nbubna@apache.org writes:
>>
>> >+ public Map getToolbox()
>> >+ {
>> >+ if (this.toolbox != null)
>> >+ {
>> >+ return Collections.unmodifiableMap(this.toolbox);
>> >+ }
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better (and probably remove a lot of these tests) to make sure
>> that the toolbox can never be null (but contains an empty List?).
>>
>> >+ return null;
>> > }
>>
>> I'd prefer Collections.EMPTY_LIST. Removes the necessity of always
>> checking for null.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Henning
>>
>> --
>> Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
>> 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
>> Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
>>
>> "Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>>
>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r480849 -
Posted by Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>.
technically, it would be an empty map not empty list, but even so, i'm
not sure about this. if we can say for sure that no one (especially
us) will ever want to tell the difference between an empty toolbox and
no toolbox being set, then it would be marginally simpler to ensure
that toolbox is never null.
at this point, it's not a great burden to always test for the
toolbox's presence and potentially provides more a more useful
interface.
in other words, i'll think about this...
On 11/30/06, Henning P. Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de> wrote:
> nbubna@apache.org writes:
>
> >+ public Map getToolbox()
> >+ {
> >+ if (this.toolbox != null)
> >+ {
> >+ return Collections.unmodifiableMap(this.toolbox);
> >+ }
>
> Wouldn't it be better (and probably remove a lot of these tests) to make sure
> that the toolbox can never be null (but contains an empty List?).
>
> >+ return null;
> > }
>
> I'd prefer Collections.EMPTY_LIST. Removes the necessity of always
> checking for null.
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
> --
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
> 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
> Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
>
> "Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org