He is just saying he doesn't want to rewrite the cases that do not have a null check.
Please re-read yourself ;) Manuel Barzi schreef: >> and where we just do this "".equals(value) without testing for null >> i will not rewrite those by first testing null to be able to call for >> length. >> > > This is wrong, we never said so. Just meant switching from > [nullability-check] && !"".equals(value) to [nullability-check] && > value.length() != 0... ONLY THOSE DUETS! > > Re-read it, you will see. > -- Erik van Oosten http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
