On 24/10/2009, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > bay...@apache.org wrote: > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=775045&view=rev > > Log: > > Genericizing per LANG-336. Removed two lines in the test that were trying > to build a to string up to a class that was not in the hierarchy. The > compiler now protects against this. > > > > > > > -public class ReflectionToStringBuilder extends ToStringBuilder { > > +public class ReflectionToStringBuilder<T> extends ToStringBuilder<T> { > > > > > > > -public class ToStringBuilder { > > +public class ToStringBuilder<T> { > > > > > > I think these gnerics are unecessary and provide insufficient benefit.
I'm inclined to agree. The same applies even more to StrLookup, whose Javadoc says: "Lookup a String key to a String value." Why does that need generification? > The use case for ToStringBuilder is a quick and easy way to produce a > toString. Users shouldn't have to manually specify the class that they are > building the toString for. Compare today vs generics: > > new ToStringBuilder() > .append(.......) > .toString(); > > new ToStringBuilder<Person>() > .append(.......) > .toString(); > > The issue of blocking the input specifying an invalid super class can be > handled by method level generics on the static factory and constructor, plus > a safety runtime check in setUpToClass(). > > Stephen > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
