Hello,
I noticed that the majority (all?) functionality of the Assertions class is
already covert by commons-lang Validate [1].
For instance Assertions.checkNotNull() is an equivalent to
Validate.notNull().
Is there a reason for this?
Regards,
André
[1]
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons
Salut André,
to avoid to depend to an external lib just to get benefit of 3 methods :)
Best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:27 PM, André Diermann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that the majority (all?) functionality of t
My preference would be for components like [io] and [lang] to be reused
from other components as a dependency in order to avoid this kind of
duplication.
Gary
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 11:27 AM, André Diermann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that the majority (all?) functionality of the Assertions c
I should clarify that I see components like [io] and [lang] as lower level
than [beanutils] for example.
Gary
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> My preference would be for components like [io] and [lang] to be reused
> from other components as a dependency in order to avoid
Simon, that makes totally sense to me :) ..that's why I also often struggle
to use StringUtils for instance... but it starts with only one method and
after some time I find myself in having copied a lot of methods.
That's why I like Gary's idea too. Regarding BU2, MethodUtil and TypeUtil
are also
I don't like the idea of creating some kind of component hierarchy, where
components higher up may depend on lower levels libs. This should be
decided for every individual case.
In the case of BU2 I'd say it's better to change the language level
requirement to 1.7. We could use Objects.notNull.
Ot
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> I don't like the idea of creating some kind of component hierarchy, where
> components higher up may depend on lower levels libs. This should be
> decided for every individual case.
>
> In the case of BU2 I'd say it's better to change the
But will upgrading to 1.7 will solve the core "issue", that some features
(in detail: Assertions, MethodUitl and TypeUtil) are copied subsets of
already implemented features in other Commons projects?
>From what I can see commons.lang3 is already referenced by BU2 (although
it's currently only use
I recommend copying the source of the Commons Lang classes you use and
maintain it privately. It is only two classes, right?
On Mar 1, 2014 12:51 PM, "André Diermann" wrote:
> But will upgrading to 1.7 will solve the core "issue", that some features
> (in detail: Assertions, MethodUitl and TypeUt
And just to add fuel to the fire and ensure every possible opinion is
represented, I agree with Gary, but would support shading after the fact to
reduce the dependency requirements.
Matt
On Mar 1, 2014 1:38 PM, "Paul Benedict" wrote:
> I recommend copying the source of the Commons Lang classes y
On 3/1/2014 9:33 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
I don't like the idea of creating some kind of component hierarchy, where
components higher up may depend on lower levels libs. This should be
decided for every individual case.
I agree. If I just want some basic low-level library, I don't want it to
Hi all,
between all options, Matt's one would be the one I'd support.
All the best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> And just to add fuel to the fire and ensure every possible opinion is
> rep
Hi Adrian
2014-03-02 8:03 GMT+01:00 Adrian Crum :
> On 3/1/2014 9:33 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
>> I don't like the idea of creating some kind of component hierarchy, where
>> components higher up may depend on lower levels libs. This should be
>> decided for every individual case.
>>
>
> I ag
Hi André
2014-03-01 19:50 GMT+01:00 André Diermann :
> But will upgrading to 1.7 will solve the core "issue", that some features
> (in detail: Assertions, MethodUitl and TypeUtil) are copied subsets of
> already implemented features in other Commons projects?
>
The stuff that we have implemente
Hi,
2014-03-02 11:42 GMT+01:00 Simone Tripodi :
> Hi all,
>
> between all options, Matt's one would be the one I'd support.
>
Shading may be a solution. But tbh I don't see a problem here. We can
replace Assertions with Objects. That leaves us with MethodUtil (which
currently only provides dete
2014-03-03 9:10 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter :
>
>
> The stuff that we have implemented in the Assertions class can be replaced
> by the methods available in Objects from java 7. You're right about
> MethodUtil and TypeUtil.
>
>
Just to be clear what you mean by replace:
- wrapping the methods from Ob
Hello André
2014-03-03 9:57 GMT+01:00 André Diermann :
> 2014-03-03 9:10 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter :
> >
> >
> > The stuff that we have implemented in the Assertions class can be
> replaced
> > by the methods available in Objects from java 7. You're right about
> > MethodUtil and TypeUtil.
> >
>
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 2014-03-02 11:42 GMT+01:00 Simone Tripodi :
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > between all options, Matt's one would be the one I'd support.
> >
>
> Shading may be a solution. But tbh I don't see a problem here. We can
> replace Assertions wit
go for it! :)
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello André
>
> 2014-03-03 9:57 GMT+01:00 André Diermann :
>
> > 2014-03-03 9:10 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter :
> > >
> > >
> > > The stuff that we hav
The Assertions class works fine and it serves its purpose. There is no
need to make the library dependent on another library.
Going that route, as a developer/user of the library, I would be forced
to download and install two libraries instead of one. So it is more
complication and work for me
Okay, so how would you feel if BU2 would depend on Java 7 instead of Java
6? Is this acceptable from your PoV?
2014-03-03 14:10 GMT+01:00 Adrian Crum :
> The Assertions class works fine and it serves its purpose. There is no
> need to make the library dependent on another library.
>
> Going that
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Okay, so how would you feel if BU2 would depend on Java 7 instead of Java
> 6? Is this acceptable from your PoV?
>
Not that you asked me ;) but I'm OK with that.
Gary
>
>
> 2014-03-03 14:10 GMT+01:00 Adrian Crum >:
>
> > The Assertions
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:50 PM, André Diermann wrote:
> But will upgrading to 1.7 will solve the core "issue", that some features
> (in detail: Assertions, MethodUitl and TypeUtil) are copied subsets of
> already implemented features in other Commons projects?
>
Commons Lang actually copied Metho
23 matches
Mail list logo
