Hello Gilles, > Am 16.10.2017 um 11:07 schrieb Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:30:01 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >>> Am 16.10.2017 um 00:34 schrieb Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>: >>> >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:45:09 -0500, Matt Sicker wrote: >>>> Assertion classes are just containers for static methods. Using "import >>>> static" is the only way in Java to import the individual methods as if the >>>> class itself were a package. Also, doing this is pretty common when using >>>> the Assert class as all its methods are prefixed with "assert" anyways. >>> >>> It's not because something is widespread that it should be emulated. >>> Is there any good reason to use "import static"? [Saving the typing >>> of 7 characters cannot be one of them.] >>> >>> It can (and does) happen that "assert..." methods are defined >>> on a per project basis, and nothing is gained when the reader >>> has to check the top of the file to be sure of what class is >>> actually used. >>> >>> My point was just that rather than cleaning up, the commit was >>> obfuscating (even if so little) the source code. >>> I prefer the other way around. :-) >> >> I think there are pros and cons for both styles. I prefer static >> imports. I don’t see any value in knowing, that assertEquals comes >> from a class called Assert. > > When you see "assertEquals", you cannot assume that it was > imported from the (Junit) "Assert" class. > In CM for example, another "assertEquals" is defined in an > internal "TestUtils" class. > > With "static" import: > 1. you won't readily know which class is used, > 2. you can't use both classes (in the same way) within a > source file (and "first-class citizens" will vary from > project to project, and from file to file), > 3. you can't easily make bulk changes (search and replace > e.g. following a library/API change). > > I don't know which pros you are referring to, but having a > developer wondering, just once, about point (1) already > nullifies the supposed advantage I know of (less typing). > [It happened to me much more than once; thus, I remove > static imports whenever encountered…]
I think Matt and I have both pointed out, why this is irrelevant. So I don’t see a reason to start yet another endless discussion. Benedikt > > Gilles > >> Cheers, >> Benedikt >> >>> >>> YMMV, >>> Gilles >>> >>> >>>> On 15 October 2017 at 13:44, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:22:13 +0200, Pascal Schumacher wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just for consistency. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Consistency is fine. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> All almost all tests already used static >>>>>> imports, so I adjusted the few that did not. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's the use of "import static" which I was questioning. >>>>> >>>>> Gilles >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -Pascal >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 15.10.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Gilles: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:34:04 +0000 (UTC), pascalschumac...@apache.org >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Repository: commons-text >>>>>>>> Updated Branches: >>>>>>>> refs/heads/master 51645b4f0 -> 8f7d0494d >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> always use static imports for assertion methods >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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
