Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [lang] Pre 2.0 StringUtils NPE changes
From: Janek Bogucki <yan@studylink.com>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
	<73E71EF16978D51197180002A56022D20743C763@ngmnt4mbx03.uk.capitalone.com>
References: 
	<73E71EF16978D51197180002A56022D20743C763@ngmnt4mbx03.uk.capitalone.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 18 Jul 2003 16:02:15 +0000
Message-Id: <1058544135.1802.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0

On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 13:49, Hope, Matthew wrote:
> interesting problem... 
> 
> "empty string" has a very clear meaning in java, it is a non null String
> object of zero length.
> 
> Does the entrenched user base merit retaining a non standard naming
> convention.
> 
> or is Empty sufficiently entrenched to also mean null? (I don't think it is)
> 
> I appreciate the dilemma but as a user would prefer it if the convention of
> empty stayed as "" and only "". (but swallowing nulls and returning false id
> just the ticket)
> 
> My 2 cents
> 
> Matt

This is the same as way I always interpret 'empty' in the context of a
Java String object. A empty String is a zero length String, not a null
object reference.

I can easily see that equating a null to an empty String is convenient
but I'd be happy to be explicit about this assumed equivalence in my
code than have a method with a slightly misleading name.

-Janek

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