Re: Code question

From:

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:14:44 +0100

Message-ID:

<alpine.DEB.1.10.1010210911350.6764@urchin.earth.li>

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--232016332-1116329771-1287648884=:6764
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Lew wrote:

mike wrote:

? ? private static Class[] aArgs= new Class[2];
? ? private static Class[] fArgs= new Class[2];
? ? static {
? ? ? ? aArgs[0] = Base.class;
? ? ? ? aArgs[1] = Director.class;
? ? ? ? fArgs[0] = Source.class;
? ? ? ? fArgs[1] = Divirter.class;
? ? }
Is it not better to write:
private static Class[] aArgs= new Class[]
{ Base.class,Director.class};
private static Class[] fArgs= new Class[]
{ Source.class,Divirter.class};

We have skipped over the likely difficulties involved in mixing generic
types with arrays, something one should avoid or else carefully manage
in Java programming.

By which Lew means you should consider:

private static List<Class<?>> aArgs = Arrays.asList(Base.class, Director.class);
private static List<Class<?>> fArgs = Arrays.asList(Source.class, Divirter.class);

However, i would guess that those constants are destined for use like
this:

Class c;
Method a = c.getMethod("a", aArgs);

In which case using lists would be the wrong choice.

tom

--
Come on thunder; come on thunder.
--232016332-1116329771-1287648884=:6764--