Le 04/08/2010 23:27, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : >>> A simpler policy would be to not check for "null" and let the JVM do it. As >>> the JVM will do it anyway, it's a redundant check when the reference is not >>> null, i.e. most of time (in legitimate usage). >> >> This simpler policy seems fine to me. >> However, it is an important change from previous behaviour. > > In practice it is not that important: there are currently only 29 > occurrences of messages referring to "null"; among those only 6 raise a > NullPointerException (the others throw an IllegalArgumentException). > >>> When the usage is wrong, the error is obvious and always the same ("null >>> reference") and the "NullPointerException" fully identify the problem. I >>> don't see why we should have a localized version of it. Yes, again, there >>> are detailed messages saying: >>> "the covariance matrix cannot be null" >>> "the function cannot be null" >>> "the denominator cannot be null" >>> etc. >>> But since any reference can potentially be "null", do you really intend to >>> have a specific meesage for every object? >> >> For these very low level errors, I would be happy with the single >> message from JVM. > > So, shall I remove all checks for "null" (and those items in > "LocalizedFormats" that are used for reporting it)? > Should I open a JIRA issue?
Lets wait from what others think about this. Luc > > > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org