+1 -- Kind Regards Ashish Vijaywargiya HotWax Systems - est. 1997
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Pranay Pandey < pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > 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 > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
