Big +1 :-) -- Kind Regards Ashish Vijaywargiya HotWax Systems - est. 1997
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > And also because else people tends to reproduce by C/P blocks of code > > Jacques > > > > Le 18/06/2016 à 12:21, Pranay Pandey a écrit : > >> Yes Deepak, IMO we should change it for existing code as well, because >> this >> type of checks some times cause functional issues on null checks on >> GenericValue. >> >> My vote will be to go for it. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Pranay Pandey >> HotWax Systems >> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ >> >> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Deepak Dixit < >> deepak.di...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: >> >> I think we can make it part of best practice and use for new code. >>> For old code, Do we need to change existing code? >>> >>> Thanks & Regards >>> -- >>> Deepak Dixit >>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>>> >>>> Michael Brohl >>>> ecomify GmbH >>>> www.ecomify.de >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 17.06.16 um 16:30 schrieb Ratnesh Upadhyay: >>>> >>>> Hello community, >>>> >>>>> There are lots of places in code where we have used >>>>> UtilValidate.isNotEmpty() or UtilValidate.isEmpty() for GenericValue >>>>> object >>>>> . GenericValue is never empty. Its always null or not null. So should >>>>> we >>>>> use directly null or not null check instead of >>>>> UtilValidate.isNotEmpty() >>>>> and UtilValidate.isEmpty() for GenericValue objects ? >>>>> >>>>> Basically these validation methods should preferably be used on Strings >>>>> >>>> or >>> >>>> Lists and normal Maps. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks!! >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ratnesh Upadhyay >>>>> HotWax Systems | www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >
