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 Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:33:09 GMT
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

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