On 09/Oct/2009 04:29, Jesse Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:31 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Add null check to equals() method.
>
>
>
> // Checks two CredOwner objects for equality.
>> @Override
>> public boolean equals(Object obj) {
>> + if (obj == null) {
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> return principalClass.equals(((CredOwner) obj).principalClass)
>> && principalName.equals(((CredOwner)
>> obj).principalName);
>> }
>>
>
>
> Does Harmony have a standard idiom for equals methods?
No different to how everyone else should write them.
> I don't think the
> equals() method above is particularly awesome. It can throw
> ClassCastExceptions and performs extra casts.
>
> As a straw man suggestion, I propose the following control flow as our
> standard idiom:
>
> @Override public boolean equals(Object object) {
> if (object == this) {
> return true;
> }
> if (object instanceof CredOwner) {
> CredOwner that = (CredOwner) object;
> return principalClass.equals(that.principalClass)
> && principalName.equals(that.principalName);
> }
> return false;
> }
>
>
> It seems like a natural performance, correctness and consistency win to
> figure out a good way to implement equals() and hashCode(), and then to do
> that everywhere in the project.
>
> Of course, we would first prefer to be consistent with the RI, such as
> implementing equals to spec when it is specified (as in Set.java) or not at
> all for reference types like AtomicInteger.
>
> Comments?
+1 that's just how I would expect to see it written too.
Regards,
Tim
