On 14 October 2014 14:07, Duncan Jones <djo...@apache.org> wrote: > On 9 October 2014 19:17, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: >> I'm not fond that we need this method. However you're raising a good point. >> BooleanUtils only "talks" english. It understands "yes" and "no" but not >> "ja" and "nein" or "oui" and "non". It would be nice to have a possibilty >> to make the toBoolean(String) method work for other langues. > > We have toBoolean(str, trueString, falseString), which helps to some extent. > > To make this class more universal, we could add an overload that > accepts Sets of strings for both false and true, meaning that > toBoolean(String) can be emulated for other languages and arbitrary > groups of true/false values. I'll raise an issue to suggest this.
Now done, see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1048 > Meanwhile, I've closed the currently discussed issue (975) since we > don't really have anyone in favour of it. > > > >> OTOH this can easily be implemented in a custom MyAppBooleanUtils which >> delegates to commons BooleanUtils and passes the correct default values. >> >> 2014-10-09 16:25 GMT+02:00 Filippo Balicchia <fbalicc...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi James, >>> IMHO I can't see the real need for this improvement, >>> any way, I disagree with this case >>> >>> BooleanUtils.toBoolean(null, null) = true >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> --Filippo >>> >>> 2014-10-09 9:49 GMT+02:00 James Sawle <jamessa...@hotmail.com>: >>> > I have created a patch for the above issue, which adds a new method >>> signature to simplify the conversion from Strings to Booleans based upon a >>> single true boolean String. This is therefore unlike the other methods, >>> which either take no parameters (use a prebuilt list of true and false >>> values), or require the user to provide a true, false and null value that >>> the parameter must match. >>> > It has been pointed out by Duncan Jones, that this is jus syntactic >>> sugar, due to it purely wrapping the StringUtils.equals method. Therefore >>> the question is, whether having this simple method would drastically >>> improve readability in calling code, or whether this would just be code >>> bloat for the sake of it. >>> > Personally, there is another option, which would be to have a version of >>> the method that takes a varargs of true values. This could therefore be >>> more useful in general cases, and could be used to simplify some of the >>> underlying String to boolean conversions. However, it should then be noted >>> that this would just become a contains check, with added protection around >>> null values. This would possibly also be more used to StringUtils with a >>> wrapper method within the BooleanUtils, which again raises the question of >>> code bloat. >>> > Any comments would be much appreciated. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/ >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter >> http://github.com/britter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
