Hi James, IMHO I can't see the real need for this improvement, any way, I disagree with this case
BooleanUtils.toBoolean(null, null) = true Regards --Filippo 2014-10-09 9:49 GMT+02:00 James Sawle <jamessa...@hotmail.com>: > I have created a patch for the above issue, which adds a new method signature > to simplify the conversion from Strings to Booleans based upon a single true > boolean String. This is therefore unlike the other methods, which either take > no parameters (use a prebuilt list of true and false values), or require the > user to provide a true, false and null value that the parameter must match. > It has been pointed out by Duncan Jones, that this is jus syntactic sugar, > due to it purely wrapping the StringUtils.equals method. Therefore the > question is, whether having this simple method would drastically improve > readability in calling code, or whether this would just be code bloat for the > sake of it. > Personally, there is another option, which would be to have a version of the > method that takes a varargs of true values. This could therefore be more > useful in general cases, and could be used to simplify some of the underlying > String to boolean conversions. However, it should then be noted that this > would just become a contains check, with added protection around null values. > This would possibly also be more used to StringUtils with a wrapper method > within the BooleanUtils, which again raises the question of code bloat. > Any comments would be much appreciated. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
