commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [lang 3] static or dynamic type checks?
Date Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:47:31 GMT
Are we going to keep the 2,3,4-arg versions?  We have to have one that
accepts Object anyway, so I guess it does keep the API a bit cleaner
to not clutter it with a Map, Collection, etc. version.  I really
don't like instanceof in code, though.  It just screams bad design.
Usually it means that you aren't thinking in an object-oriented
fashion.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
> I think we should reduce the overloading and just accept Object. From the
> runtime type, we can determine how to do further checks. Then, we can nicely
> implement 1 args, 2, args, ... and finally var-args overloads.
>
> Paul
>
> On 11/26/2009 10:49 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>> So, what you're concerned with is the first parameter (the "thing" we
>> want to check, which we do so by reflection)?  Why do we need to
>> change its type?
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Paul Benedict<pbenedict@apache.org>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> James,
>>>
>>> Yes. I want to also eliminate the static types of all the overloaded
>>> methods. We don't need a version for maps, one for char sets, one for
>>> objects, one for collections, etc. We can do all those checks
>>> dynamically.
>>>
>>> This was my point of my original email. What are your thoughts on it?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message