Shall we do this in a more pragmatic fashion? One method at a time. Let's
start with changing:
/**
* Adds all elements in the array to the given collection.
*
* @param <C> the type of object the {@link Collection} contains
* @param collection the collection to add to, must not be null
* @param elements the array of elements to add, must not be null
* @return {@code true} if the collection was changed, {@code false}
otherwise
* @throws NullPointerException if the collection or array is null
*/
public static <C> boolean addAll(final Collection<C> collection, final
C... elements) {
boolean changed = false;
for (final C element : elements) {
changed |= collection.add(element);
}
return changed;
}
to:
/**
* Adds all elements in the array to the given collection.
*
* @param <C> the type of object the {@link Collection} contains
* @param collection the collection to add to
* @param elements the array of elements to add
* @return {@code true} if the collection was changed, {@code false}
otherwise
*/
public static <C> boolean addAll(final Collection<C> collection, final
C... elements) {
boolean changed = false;
if (collection != null && elements != null) {
for (final C element : elements) {
changed |= collection.add(element);
}
}
return changed;
}
Which makes the method not blow up when either inputs is null.
Gary
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Dave Brosius <dbros...@mebigfatguy.com>
wrote:
> This protection concept sounds perfectly rational, until you think of
> other obvious things that do similar things to protect the coder.
>
> myLong.equals(myString) doesn't throw an exception for instance, it just
> return false.
>
> but then you never know that you have a problem in your code and just
> blindly go along using it seemingly working fine.
>
> Similarly, given that collection.addAll(null) throws, papering over that
> fact with CollectionUtils might do more harm than good.
>
>
>
>
> On 05/19/2018 09:10 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 4:47 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 May 2018 at 20:34, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All:
>>>>
>>>> A lot of methods in CollectionUtils are not null-safe and are documented
>>>>
>>> as
>>>
>>>> such in Javadoc with throwing NPEs.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to change that.
>>>>
>>> To what?
>>>
>>> For example, this should not cause an NPE:
>>
>> collectionA = new ArrayList();
>> CollectionUtils.addAll(collectionA, (Integer[]) null);
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> The change is behavioral and BC would be preserved.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>> It depends on the method whether a null parameter makes sense or not.
>>> In some cases it may be confusing if null is accepted.
>>> And what is meant by a null parameter.
>>>
>>> In any case, any such changes need a big warning in the release notes.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
>
