Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.185 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=bLpO3RLVU/QqVmJ5Mi4OxYossSXrL2tG3nUnm75dWjgXTAP6lEGwh9N0CCiCvEkW1t
         Qn/itmllZlHlIyeaBIiHyh+AtwBNBoToV0Tdz2du9r9XwkFL1L970oEV1RIjVC85++0T
         e/Eu54qsCSCiJjw7GdYpI35nlJ40DLB6gstkA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <f2e8eedf0911261738h31e547b2jf787923bb03139e4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b9e663070911252116s65249f53v4ac838d23ec58173@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f2e8eedf0911260511r61d759d3gcdc767d3fb5172b8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b9e663070911260759p20522ebeq8b2ecdbeef786f4f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f2e8eedf0911261738h31e547b2jf787923bb03139e4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:42:56 -0600
Message-ID: <b9e663070911261842n6011f875u1d767e134d68adbd@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lang 3] static or dynamic type checks?
From: Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

James,

The compiler instantiates the Object[] every time because that's how
the ellipsis notation is translated.

Paul

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM, James Carman
<james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> Yes, but if the check passes, there's no need to create the Object[]
> for single-argument method invocations.
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wr=
ote:
>> The purpose of var-args, at least from my vantage, is to produce
>> detail messages that are used by java.lang.String.format.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:11 AM, James Carman
>> <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> I just wrote a class that included...
>>>
>>> =A0 =A0public static <T> T someMethod(T val)
>>> =A0 =A0{
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0System.out.println("Single value method!");
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return val;
>>> =A0 =A0}
>>>
>>> =A0 =A0public static <T> T[] someMethod(T... values)
>>> =A0 =A0{
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0System.out.println("Multi-value method.");
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return values;
>>> =A0 =A0}
>>>
>>> =A0 =A0public static void main(String[] args)
>>> =A0 =A0{
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0someMethod("Hello");
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0someMethod("Hello", "World");
>>> =A0 =A0}
>>>
>>> When I ran it, it printed:
>>>
>>> Single value method!
>>> Multi-value method.
>>>
>>> So, what's the big deal? =A0Create a single-value method and create a
>>> multi-value method. =A0I must be missing something in this discussion.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> =
wrote:
>>>> If we want to implement LANG-508 (Validate: add message parameter
>>>> construction via elllipsis notation to speed up processing), I am
>>>> really concerned with the many overloaded versions of #validIndex()
>>>> and #notEmpty() that solely differ by static argument type:
>>>> Collection, Object, Object[], CharSequence, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Because var-args instantiate a new Object[], it won't be possible to
>>>> easily create one-argument optimized overloaded versions to prevent
>>>> the creation. Such as:
>>>> public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object va=
r1);
>>>> public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object
>>>> var1, Object var2);
>>>> public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object
>>>> var1, Object var2, Object var3);
>>>> public static <T> T[] notEmpty(Object array, String message, Object
>>>> var1, Object var2, Object var3, Object... vars);
>>>>
>>>> I am following the good advice on Joshua Bloch on this one. It's item
>>>> #42 in his Effective Java book.
>>>>
>>>> I want to eliminate the overloaded versions by type and check those
>>>> types using instanceof instead. Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>

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