You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com> on 2009/11/17 10:33:56 UTC
[lang] Checking for NULL
The new ObjectUtils.firstNonNull() method checked for both null and the
ObjectUtils.NULL constant object. Since that was the only method with
that behaviour I removed the check for the NULL object.
The question is broader than that... do we want all null checks in
ObjectUtils or [lang] to also check for ObjectUtils.NULL?
IMO, the NULL constant was intended for collections where null isn't
valid. So I don't think I'd add broader checks.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] Checking for NULL
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Agreed. I'd never read the javadoc which suggests collections usage
> and had assumed we had grander schemes.
>
> Is ObjectUtils.NULL worth keeping?
I think ObjectUtils.NULL is worth keeping, but there should be two
methods that do know about it:
public T wrapNull(T obj) {
return obj != null ? obj : NULL;
}
public T unwrapNull(T obj) {
return obj != NULL ? obj : null;
}
Stephen
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The use of ObjectUtils.NULL seems esoteric. If you didn't write this
>> email, I wouldn't have known of its support.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne
>> <sc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> The new ObjectUtils.firstNonNull() method checked for both null and the
>>> ObjectUtils.NULL constant object. Since that was the only method with that
>>> behaviour I removed the check for the NULL object.
>>>
>>> The question is broader than that... do we want all null checks in
>>> ObjectUtils or [lang] to also check for ObjectUtils.NULL?
>>>
>>> IMO, the NULL constant was intended for collections where null isn't valid.
>>> So I don't think I'd add broader checks.
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] Checking for NULL
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
Agreed. I'd never read the javadoc which suggests collections usage
and had assumed we had grander schemes.
Is ObjectUtils.NULL worth keeping?
Hen
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> The use of ObjectUtils.NULL seems esoteric. If you didn't write this
> email, I wouldn't have known of its support.
>
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne
> <sc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> The new ObjectUtils.firstNonNull() method checked for both null and the
>> ObjectUtils.NULL constant object. Since that was the only method with that
>> behaviour I removed the check for the NULL object.
>>
>> The question is broader than that... do we want all null checks in
>> ObjectUtils or [lang] to also check for ObjectUtils.NULL?
>>
>> IMO, the NULL constant was intended for collections where null isn't valid.
>> So I don't think I'd add broader checks.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] Checking for NULL
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
The use of ObjectUtils.NULL seems esoteric. If you didn't write this
email, I wouldn't have known of its support.
Paul
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne
<sc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> The new ObjectUtils.firstNonNull() method checked for both null and the
> ObjectUtils.NULL constant object. Since that was the only method with that
> behaviour I removed the check for the NULL object.
>
> The question is broader than that... do we want all null checks in
> ObjectUtils or [lang] to also check for ObjectUtils.NULL?
>
> IMO, the NULL constant was intended for collections where null isn't valid.
> So I don't think I'd add broader checks.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org