On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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. > Go for it! :) Gary > > 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.dierm...@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 <garydgreg...@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.dierm...@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: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@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 > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@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
