#2 sounds good, but before I vote to change the functionality, could you remind me what the proposed functionality actually is? :-) This has been a sudden, large thread and I haven't had time to dig back and read all the arguments...
The point of all these methods is (a) convenience and (b) null swallowing when desired. I'm thus a little dubious about the proposal I read to throw NPEs. Thanks - - A On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 01:10:43AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > Please keep this thread focussed on deprecation or not. > > For the 2.0 release, the chomp() methods have already changed functionality > to be closer to Perl. Other methods have had null handling changed to be > silent rather than NPE. > > Proposals are to change isEmpty() and isNotEmpty() functionality. Choices > are > > 1) Use a different method name and deprecate original. > Virtually impossible as method names are critical. > > 2) Change the functionality and document as with chomp(). > This is a major version release, so this seems fair. > > 3) Create a new class StringTests to hold all the isXxx() methods from > StringUtils. > Deprecate the original methods, pointing at StringTests. > (Side advantage, decreases size of StringUtils) > (Side disadvantage, increases API) > It would be possible for StringUtils to extend StringTests for minimum > impact. > > > Personally, I choose #2. That is what a major version is for. Particularly > this version 2 which is ironing out issues like this. > > Stephen > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
