On 2 March 2011 12:50, Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >> > BTW, you can find precedence in the JVM for many methods that throw NPE on >> > null arguments. I am not saying this is the "right way", since such things >> > are subjective and are a matter of design, but many people have concluded >> > it's better. >> >> If the NPE would not be detected until the method has done some other >> work, then I can seem why one might want to detect it earlier.
The above is the trade-off. >> And the line number may be insufficient to identify the source of the >> NPE - there could be several de-references in a single line. > > This is the trade-off which I had mentioned here: Not really ... >> >>> In the end, I'm really not sure what is the best approach for this >> >>> particular case. Personally, I'd be happy that the CM code never checks >> >>> for >> >>> null and let the JVM throw NPE. This would hugely simplify the CM code, >> >>> albeit at the cost of detecting bad usage a little later. IMHO, it is not >> >>> a >> >>> big deal because the bug is that an object is missing somewhere up the >> >>> call >> >>> stack, and it should be corrected there... > .. it may be impossible to determine the true cause of the NPE in some cases. So in some cases, it makes sense to check for NPE at the start. > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
