Are we going to keep the 2,3,4-arg versions? We have to have one that accepts Object anyway, so I guess it does keep the API a bit cleaner to not clutter it with a Map, Collection, etc. version. I really don't like instanceof in code, though. It just screams bad design. Usually it means that you aren't thinking in an object-oriented fashion.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I think we should reduce the overloading and just accept Object. From the > runtime type, we can determine how to do further checks. Then, we can nicely > implement 1 args, 2, args, ... and finally var-args overloads. > > Paul > > On 11/26/2009 10:49 PM, James Carman wrote: >> >> So, what you're concerned with is the first parameter (the "thing" we >> want to check, which we do so by reflection)? Why do we need to >> change its type? >> >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Paul Benedict<pbened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> James, >>> >>> Yes. I want to also eliminate the static types of all the overloaded >>> methods. We don't need a version for maps, one for char sets, one for >>> objects, one for collections, etc. We can do all those checks >>> dynamically. >>> >>> This was my point of my original email. What are your thoughts on it? >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
