Objects.toString [Re: What methods should go into a java.util.Objects class in JDK 7?]

[Ulf Zibis]

+1 or drop Objects.toString(obj) completely.

-Ulf


Am 08.10.2009 12:47, Stephen Colebourne schrieb:
> A number of us are proposing that Objects.toString(obj) should return
> "" when the object is null. I'm strongly in favour of this, and it
> removes any discussion of duplicated API (as it does something
> different and more useful).
>
> In favour/against +1/-1 ?
>
> Stephen
>
> 2009/10/7 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>   
>> David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>>     
>>> Stephen Colebourne said the following on 10/07/09 18:10:
>>>       
>>>> BTW, I don't accept the argument that one and only one way to do
>>>> something is part of the JDK.
>>>>         
>>> While the JDK is far from a model example of providing "one way" to do
>>> something, that doesn't mean we should gratuitously add superfluous and
>>> redundant functionality.
>>>       
>> The JDK has a long history of providing convenience methods.  For example,
>> we have PrintStream.format and PrintStream.printf which are just two names
>> for the same functionality.
>>
>>     
>>> Type.valueOf is an established pattern for converting types.
>>>
>>> The JDK is already severely bloated - new APIs should pay their own way.
>>>       
>> Getting rid of more than half a dozen implementations of equals(Object,
>> Object) should just in the JDK should more than pay the for the entire
>> Objects class ;-)
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>