commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <ggreg...@seagullsw.com>
Subject RE: [lang] StringUtils isEmpty - deprecate or change?
Date Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:52:26 GMT
I am +1 on #2.

I am +1 on the #3 idea but not as a subclass. IF we really wanted something
like this, why not then create a String wrapper class which behaves and
looks more OO. Another discussion I know... ;-)

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 17:11
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [lang] StringUtils isEmpty - deprecate or change?

Please keep this thread focussed on deprecation or not.

For the 2.0 release, the chomp() methods have already changed functionality
to be closer to Perl. Other methods have had null handling changed to be
silent rather than NPE.

Proposals are to change isEmpty() and isNotEmpty() functionality. Choices
are

1) Use a different method name and deprecate original.
Virtually impossible as method names are critical.

2) Change the functionality and document as with chomp().
This is a major version release, so this seems fair.

3) Create a new class StringTests to hold all the isXxx() methods from
StringUtils.
Deprecate the original methods, pointing at StringTests.
(Side advantage, decreases size of StringUtils)
(Side disadvantage, increases API)
It would be possible for StringUtils to extend StringTests for minimum
impact.


Personally, I choose #2. That is what a major version is for. Particularly
this version 2 which is ironing out issues like this.

Stephen


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message