On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Henryk Konsek wrote:
>> We should probably name it NoopAsyncCallback as IMHO thats a better name.
>
> I'm used to naming Noop- callbacks as Empty-ones but Noop sounds fine
> as well :) .
>
>> Also we may consider a single static instance as its just a noop, eg
>> l
> We should probably name it NoopAsyncCallback as IMHO thats a better name.
I'm used to naming Noop- callbacks as Empty-ones but Noop sounds fine
as well :) .
> Also we may consider a single static instance as its just a noop, eg
> like Collections.emptyList() does.
I thought about it but decide
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Henryk Konsek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What about replacing anonymous inner noop AsyncCallback with
> EmptyAsyncCallback? Just to make a codebase a little bit nicer.
>
> // Bad
> Object value = invocation.proceed(new AsyncCallback() {
> public void done(boolean doneSync) {
