Hi Simo,
2013/2/5 Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> > Guten Tag, Bene, > > > I personally try to avoid static imports. > > Especially when you come to a legacy code base IMHO it makes the code > > harder to understand. > > as BU2 user, would you write the following sentence > > on( testBean ).invoke( "setBooleanProperty" ).with( argument( new > Boolean( false ) ) ); > > as > > BeanUtils.on( testBean ).invoke( "setBooleanProperty" ).with( > Argument.argument( new Boolean( false ) ) ); > > ? > > Better switching back to old BU APIs, there's no benefit anymore on > switching to a functional-style approach APIs. > As I said, I haven't decided yet how to handle static imports. You're right, when pointing out, that not using static imports here is more verbose. But IMHO BU2 is a step forward compared to BU1 even without static imports! :) I personally would probably do something like: BeanUtils.on( testBean ).invoke( "setBooleanProperty" ).with( argument( Boolean.valueOf( false ) ) ); // or just valueOf( false )? ;-) This way I can see what API I'm entering. For the call to Argument.argument(T) I would use a static import, because it is clear what context it is coming from. In fact, this is, how I use EasyMock at work. I qualify calls to expect(), replay(), verify() etc but use static import when using the factory methods for IExpectationSetters. Makes sense? Probably only to me :) See, it's just a convention I've found useful for myself. > > > You always have to look, where a method comes from. > > Isn't the same thing we have to do with classes? when using a List, > what ensures you are using java.util.List rather than java.awt.List? > Why you consider methods case so different to classes? > Your right. I'd normally try to import java.util.List, because it is the most common List implementation and qualify java.awt.List if I have to use both in the same class. But again this is only a convention I have made for myself. > > > Also you may have the problem, that you accidentally override imported > > static methods, when defining a new static method with the same name. > > same name, same arguments and same return type? It would be possible. > But, again, that would be possible doing it also with classes, same > package and same name; as exercise, create a project and import > commons-beanutils-1.7.0 + commons-collections-3.2.1: which version of > FastHashMap is taken by the classloader? > > I still haven't found the reason why methods should be a special case. > I guess I'll just revert that commit and we'll see were it gets us. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Benedikt > > What I am sure, there's no rule. > > my 0.00000002 though, > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
