Objects.toString [Re: What methods should go into a java.util.Objects class in JDK 7?]
Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
Thu Oct 8 16:36:54 UTC 2009
+1 or drop Objects.toString(obj) completely.
Am 08.10.2009 12:47, Stephen Colebourne schrieb:
> A number of us are proposing that Objects.toString(obj) should return
> "" when the object is null. I'm strongly in favour of this, and it
> removes any discussion of duplicated API (as it does something
> different and more useful).
> In favour/against +1/-1 ?
> 2009/10/7 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>> David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>>> Stephen Colebourne said the following on 10/07/09 18:10:
>>>> BTW, I don't accept the argument that one and only one way to do
>>>> something is part of the JDK.
>>> While the JDK is far from a model example of providing "one way" to do
>>> something, that doesn't mean we should gratuitously add superfluous and
>>> redundant functionality.
>> The JDK has a long history of providing convenience methods. For example,
>> we have PrintStream.format and PrintStream.printf which are just two names
>> for the same functionality.
>>> Type.valueOf is an established pattern for converting types.
>>> The JDK is already severely bloated - new APIs should pay their own way.
>> Getting rid of more than half a dozen implementations of equals(Object,
>> Object) should just in the JDK should more than pay the for the entire
>> Objects class ;-)
More information about the core-libs-dev