Dunno. If I supply my own Comparator to BeanComparator, I think it's up to
me as to whether it blows up. "No magic".
For the first/last question, it's easy. Use whathever NullComparator does
by default. Someone is always free to specify NullComparator(true) as a
comparator to beancomparator.
Or
I know that some have objected to this in the past, but I think this is a
good idea.
I think that BeanComparator should work with nulls
"out-of-the-box" the question arises - are nulls first or last? There is
an old issue that deals with this:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
Currently BeanComparator will fall over on a null, as
'testCompareWithNulls' unit test shows.
Is there a lot of objection to making it more user friendly and making it
wrap NullComparator instead of ComparableComparator so that nulls do not
break?
[NullComparator wraps ComparableComparator by de
