commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [beanutils2] Assertions class vs. lang Validate
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2014 08:13:53 GMT
Hi,


2014-03-02 11:42 GMT+01:00 Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> between all options, Matt's one would be the one I'd support.
>

Shading may be a solution. But tbh I don't see a problem here. We can
replace Assertions with Objects. That leaves us with MethodUtil (which
currently only provides detection of mapped setters and getters) and
TypeUtils (which does some Wrapper to Primitive type conversation).
Is it really worth the effort to do shading and stuff just to get rid of
this stuff?

Benedikt


>
> All the best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And just to add fuel to the fire and ensure every possible opinion is
> > represented, I agree with Gary, but would support shading after the fact
> to
> > reduce the dependency requirements.
> >
> > Matt
> > On Mar 1, 2014 1:38 PM, "Paul Benedict" <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I recommend copying the source of the Commons Lang classes you use and
> > > maintain it privately. It is only two classes, right?
> > > On Mar 1, 2014 12:51 PM, "André Diermann" <andre.diermann@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > But will upgrading to 1.7 will solve the core "issue", that some
> > features
> > > > (in detail: Assertions, MethodUitl and TypeUtil) are copied subsets
> of
> > > > already implemented features in other Commons projects?
> > > >
> > > > From what I can see commons.lang3 is already referenced by BU2
> > (although
> > > > it's currently only used by TestBean).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-03-01 18:33 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't like the idea of creating some kind of component hierarchy,
> > > where
> > > > > components higher up may depend on lower levels libs. This should
> be
> > > > > decided for every individual case.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the case of BU2 I'd say it's better to change the language level
> > > > > requirement to 1.7. We could use Objects.notNull.
> > > > > Other benefits include the new ReflectiveOperationException root
> > > > exception
> > > > > [1] which was introduced in Java 7 and the multi catch blocks. This
> > > would
> > > > > make the exception handling and wrapping code much more clearer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Benedikt
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/ReflectiveOperationException.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2014-03-01 17:50 GMT+01:00 André Diermann <
> andre.diermann@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Simon, that makes totally sense to me :) ..that's why I also
> often
> > > > > struggle
> > > > > > to use StringUtils for instance... but it starts with only one
> > method
> > > > and
> > > > > > after some time I find myself in having copied a lot of methods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's why I like Gary's idea too. Regarding BU2, MethodUtil
and
> > > > TypeUtil
> > > > > > are also subsets from their lang pendants. So, when extending
BU2
> > > more
> > > > > and
> > > > > > more to BU's feature set, there might be even more copied
> > methods...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I am not so deep in BU2's component architecture like you
> guys,
> > > so
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep it lightweight is fine for more :) I was only wondering
why
> it
> > > was
> > > > > not
> > > > > > reused.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2014-03-01 17:32 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My preference would be for components like [io] and [lang]
to
> be
> > > > reused
> > > > > > > from other components as a dependency in order to avoid
this
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > > > duplication.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 11:27 AM, André Diermann <
> > > > > > andre.diermann@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I noticed that the majority (all?) functionality of
the
> > > Assertions
> > > > > > class
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > already covert by commons-lang Validate [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For instance Assertions.checkNotNull() is an equivalent
to
> > > > > > > > Validate.notNull().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is there a reason for this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > André
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/javadocs/api-release/index.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > > > > > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<
> > > > > > > http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > > > > > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <
> > http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > > > > > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > > > > > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > > > > > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > > > > > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> > > > > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> > > > > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> > > > > http://github.com/britter
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message