Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-117151-apmail-commons-dev-archive=commons.apache.org@commons.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 31804 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2009 01:39:42 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Nov 2009 01:39:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 69153 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2009 01:39:41 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org
Received: (qmail 69033 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2009 01:39:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@commons.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@commons.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.commons.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org
Received: (qmail 69023 invoked by uid 99); 27 Nov 2009 01:39:41 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:39:41 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [74.125.92.149] (HELO qw-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.92.149)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:39:32 +0000
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 14so195965qwa.60
        for <dev@commons.apache.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:39:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com
Received: by 10.229.29.148 with SMTP id q20mr53333qcc.51.1259285951506; Thu,
	26 Nov 2009 17:39:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <b9e663070911260759p20522ebeq8b2ecdbeef786f4f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b9e663070911252116s65249f53v4ac838d23ec58173@mail.gmail.com>
	<f2e8eedf0911260511r61d759d3gcdc767d3fb5172b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<b9e663070911260759p20522ebeq8b2ecdbeef786f4f@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:38:51 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d674c3bf1e3349cb
Message-ID: <f2e8eedf0911261738h31e547b2jf787923bb03139e4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lang 3] static or dynamic type checks?
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

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> wrot=
e:
> 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> w=
rote:
>>> 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 var=
1);
>>> 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