sorry, didn't mean to imply that. -----Original Message----- From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:39 PM To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' Subject: RE: [lang] new StringBuffer
Matthew, Please note that I am only replying to Ash's message in order to toss ideas around. I am just trying to get to what Ash is really proposing. I am not advocating for the addition of such a class, it certainly is not "my" class ;-) Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Inger, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:14 > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > Subject: RE: [lang] new StringBuffer > > I would get no warm and fuzzy feeling from this. It gains you > nothing, and will make code more confusing. Being that String is > final, you can't make this a subclass, so you'd have to do conversions > all over the place between String and your class. > > IMHO, extending a class to add new functionality is not a good OOP > practice (Liskov substitution rule). That's really what you're > trying to do here, even though you can't actually extend String. > > Utility methods are the way to go. It's simple and concise, plus > there's no conversions needed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:04 PM > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > Subject: RE: [lang] new StringBuffer > > > With a "replacement" String class, you can add to it all sorts of goodies > now in StringUtils and pass instances of that around. The code would look > a > little better than having static calls to StringUtils all over. I guess it > is a matter a style. The more I think about it though, the less warm and > fuzzy I feel about it... (since you also need to toString() the object > before passing it to anything to needs a "real" String). > > Gary > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Inger, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 11:53 > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [lang] new StringBuffer > > > > java.lang.String is already immutable. Why would you want to create an > > "ImmutableString" class? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:51 PM > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [lang] new StringBuffer > > > > > > Ash, > > > > I am confused, are you talking about creating a better String or a > better > > StringBuffer? You mention "the replacement of StringBuffer", but then > > suggest "ImmutableString", these names (in "") are two very different > > things. > > > > It sure would be nice to have an ImmutableString class to use instead of > > the > > plain old JRE String, but it is not a different StringBuffer. Or are you > > saying that this new class should do both jobs? In which case, it would > > not > > be immutable ;-) > > > > Gary > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ASHWIN Suresh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:31 > > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > > Subject: RE: [lang] new StringBuffer > > > > > > First off, in my conception of the replacement of StringBuffer, > > > I imagine error handling will take care of wrongly passed in values > > > in a manner similar to classes in cmmons.lang, rather than in Standard > > > API. That is, it will change the erroneous inputs to benign values, > > > rather than throwing an exception. Please confirm this. > > > > > > If Stephen meant that even erroneous input results in the same > behavior > > > as in java.lang.StringBuffer, then I would say, my understanding > > > of the intention of the replacement was in part to soften the reaction > > > toward wrong argument input. Let me know. > > > > > > Talking about name, I would add my opinion that while it might be > > > nice to have a name for the replacer that is much like the replacee, > > > (StringBuf) one might prefer a more descriptive name at the expense > > > of this convenience: (ImmutableString). > > > > > > As a compromise between the two, the name Strand can be adopted > (Str... > > > so near the original one + can be defined to represent a mutable > > > string contrasted with "String" which, by virtue of the so-named > > > class in the API, is immutable.) > > > > > > Comments. > > > Ash > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > I remembered my favorite name - StringBuf. Its always nice if > > > > the class > > > > appears in Eclipse next to the one its replacing :-) > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Ash .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sounds good, I will then work on a StringBuffer > > > > replacement, and then > > > > > later on get on to providing it with an XUtils. > > > > > > > > > > That way, we will also be able to optimize the subsequent > > > > StringBufferUtils > > > > > implementation using package-private access. > > > > > I have always been a little disappointed with the facilities > > > > > java.lang.StringBuffer > > > > > offered, and now I have a chance to do something abt it :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And now for the name game: I propose MutableString. > > > > > > > > > > Other possible name suggestions, some quite fancy, would be: > > > > > > > > > > Strand, CharStrand > > > > > Token, > > > > > Bead, CharBead, > > > > > CharGroup, CharBunch, > > > > > CharLot, StringLot.... > > > > > > > > > > I find Strand especially useful because that lets us talk > > > > about a mutable > > > > > string in a conceptually distinct manner. Of course, its > > > > replacive role is > > > > > not immediate obvious by the name, and some might suggest that it > is > > > > better > > > > > that the new name reflects its surrogate nature wrt > > > > StringBuffer. However, > > > > a > > > > > new coin may be useful in the long term. Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > > > >From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 22:15 > > > > > >To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > > >Subject: Re: [lang] StringBufferUtils replacement for > > > > StringUtils -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ah, I see what you mean. And no that wasn't what I meant :-) > > > > > > > > > > > >There is the potential for a StringBufferUtils, with > > > > similar methods to > > > > > >StringUtils, but where the first passed in parameter is a > > > > StringBuffer. > > > > > > > > > > > >However, what I was thinking of (see the todo list in > > > > status.html) is a > > > > new > > > > > >instantiable class > > > > > > > > > > > >public AStringBuffer() { > > > > > > private char[] buffer = new char[32]; > > > > > > private int size = 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > public AStringBuffer() { > > > > > > } > > > > > > public void append(Object obj) { > > > > > > // copy to end of buffer > > > > > > } > > > > > >} > > > > > > > > > > > >ie. a direct StringBuffer replacement. > > > > > > > > > > > >Both are good candidates for [lang]. > > > > > > > > > > > >Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > > >From: "ASHWIN Suresh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > With the one difference that the methods here don't > > > > return aything, > > > > but > > > > > > > instead modify the StringBuffer > > > > > > > passed in, directly. > > > > > > > I will start work on it tonight. > > > > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Stephen Colebourne > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 20:07 > > > > > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [lang] String Utils replacement for > > > > StringUtils -- was > > > > > > > > ([lang] StringUtils.split() functionality wrt > > > > separator repeats) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The string buffer class needs to begin by having all the > same > > > > > > > > methods as > > > > > > > > StringBuffer, and they should do exactly the same. Then, > > > > > > > > methods to handle > > > > > > > > null would be added: > > > > > > > > appendSilentNull() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At that point, we could evaluate it and see what else > > > > should be > > > > added. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "ASHWIN Suresh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > Incidentally (or perhaps it was to come), I was about to > > > > > > > > send out another > > > > > > > > > email > > > > > > > > > proposing a StringUtils-like class that handles > > > > > > > > StringBuffer instead. > > > > > > > > > I would be interested in writing it, but I need to > evaluate > > > > > > > > how much time > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > can afford > > > > > > > > > to it (will let u know). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the meanwhile, assuming I can go ahead, you can list > out > > > > > > > > right away > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > differences > > > > > > > > > you see between StringUtils and the StringBuffer > > > > > > > > counterpart. I can, for > > > > > > > > > now, perhaps cover the > > > > > > > > > simpler methods which are similar to the StringUtils ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding tightening admissibility of new methods to a > > > > > > > > class because it is > > > > > > > > > large, I > > > > > > > > > am of the opinion that for a class of only static methods > > > > > > > > such as this > > > > > > > > one, > > > > > > > > > why should there be any hesitation. StringUtils is but a > > > > > > > > repository of all > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > features, so as long as we have clear documentation, I see > > > > > > > > no reason why > > > > > > > > > largeness > > > > > > > > > should lead to limits to having more methods. > > > > > > > > > Let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Stephen Colebourne > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 22:05 > > > > > > > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [lang] StringUtils.split() functionality > wrt > > > > > > > > separator > > > > > > > > > > repeats > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With StringUtils, we now face tough decisions. > > > > The class is > > > > > > > > > > already very > > > > > > > > > > large, and adding more and more methods is not > necessarily > > > > > > > > > > the answer. I am > > > > > > > > > > now applying a fairly high level of justification to new > > > > > > > > additions to > > > > > > > > > > StringUtils. ATM more split methods or overloads > > > > don't meet > > > > > > > > > > what I'm looking > > > > > > > > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, there are still some misisng methods in > > > > > > > > > > StringUtils, notably > > > > > > > > > > startsWith, endsWith and concat/append. (all null-safe). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, a StringBuffer replacement needs writing, > if > > > > > > > > > > you're interested > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Run, rabbit run. > > > > > Dig that hole, forget the sun, > > > > > And when at last the work is done > > > > > Don't sit down it's time to dig another one. > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger > > > > > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > 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]
