Just a detail: this is certainly not in trunk since around r883364 I have replaced all these kinds of idioms by some kinds of
UtilValidate.is*Empty(), here for instance: UtilValidate.isNotEmpty()
Jacques
From: "Adam Heath" <doo...@brainfood.com>
Bob Morley wrote:
Actually I just did a quick test and the SAX parser returns all attributes
that are defined in the document (even if they have empty string as their
value). The code as originally written ...
// treat empty strings as nulls
if (value != null && value.length() > 0) {
Exclude if the value is null (not sure how that would happen) but also if it
is empty string. So it would be technically feasible to treat explicit
empty string values as "null" for the database and having non-specified
field values ignored (as they are now).
Again, no. There is a very big difference between an actual empty
string, and a null value. Do not overload the meaning.
Having said that, if we feel it is more reasonable to be explicit here
(fieldname="null" or null_fieldname="") then I am all for it.
It seems to me personally, that it is more intuitive to have fieldname=""
imply an explicit set to null in the database which would be consist with
what you get on the initial create and would be a force back to "blank" on
an update. Not having the field clearly implies ignore (which is what it
does now), etc etc etc.
Anyone buying that? :)
Not me.
