commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <>
Subject Re: [LANG] Null-protection methods
Date Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:43:11 GMT
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
> Is the following worth keeping in Lang?
> public Foo someJdkMethod(Object input) {
>    if(input == null) {
>        handleAccordingly();
>    }
>    return input.jdkMethod();
> }
> I feel that we've bloated up with these methods, and is it really
> worth it? I still have lots of if(x != null && x.callFoo()) type
> invocations, having a small handful of methods available in Lang to
> let me say if(FooUtils.callFoo(x)) isn't enough to hide all of the
> other times when I might have to worry about it.
> Personally I'd like to see these methods removed from Lang [especially
> given Stephen's blogging about null protected setting in some future
> JVM].
> An example:
>    public static String trim(String str) {
>        return str == null ? null : str.trim();
>    }
> Given that I'm likely to do N things to the string, chances are I'll
> check for null up front and then invoke methods rather than repeatedly
> writing ugly code by using StringUtils.
> Any thoughts in favour of these methods?

What do bug catchers such as FindBugs do with situations like these?
Would they still report it as a potential bug?  Or, do they dig into
the FooUtils.callFoo() methods to see if they're doing the null check?
 I'm just curious, I guess.  If FindBugs is still going to report it
as a potential bug, then it would seem like folks would probably be
doing the null check on their own to quiet down FindBugs (not that
everyone uses it of course).

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

View raw message