commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [Lang] Assertions?
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:16:25 GMT

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Paul Cantrell wrote:

> JDK 1.4's assertion facilities make most of Ola's examples too trivial
> to warrant helper methods, IMO -- the following all seem quite clear
> and concise :
>      assert object != null;

Yeah, one reason for Ola's suggestion would be to offer similar
functionality to JDK 1.3 and before users.

> However, the Java version has a big advantage: In the latter example,
> the code will *always* call elements.toString() -- even if the
> assertion succeeds, and even if assertions are turned off!  The Java
> native version doesn't evalutate the condition unless assertions are
> enabled, and doesn't evaluate the message unless the assertion fails.

Yeah, I think it'd be accepted that people would gain better performance
using 1.4. When Lang becomes 1.4 dependent, thigns could be deprecated
and/or refactored.

> The only one of the examples in Ola's message that isn't trivial with
> 1.4's assert is "noNullElements".  If there is actually a need for
> assert utilities, it's for deeper structural checks like that.

A good thing to focus on then. We'd need to have a good mental separation
between things that would deprecate obviously at 1.4 and things that would
refactor at 1.4.

> Henri: Java assertions throw AssertionError.  JUnit does provide some
> basic assertion facilities, but only for test classes.

Then rather than throwing IllegalArgumentException I would suggest we
throw something closer to that. Either AssertionError, or more likely
AssertError or something. Close enough to feel the same, but not enough to


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message