RFR 4358774: Add null InputStream and OutputStream (original) (raw)

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan jbluettduncan at gmail.com
Fri Dec 8 19:07:39 UTC 2017

Like David, I prefer the null{$ClassName} alternative to null{Source|Sink}. (I assume from his wording that he prefers null{$ClassName}.)

I prefer null{$ClassName} not only because it's less ambiguous, but also because Guava has existing types {Byte|Char}Source and {Byte|Char}Sink, so I'd find it a bit confusing to see nullSource() at first (especially if it were statically-imported) as I would initially expect it to have a return type of *Source.

Cheers, Jonathan

On 8 December 2017 at 19:03, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhalter at oracle.com> wrote:

On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:52 AM, David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Brian Burkhalter > <brian.burkhalter at oracle.com> wrote: >> Patrick’s comment made us think again about the naming here as “nullStream()” would not fit for eventual equivalent methods on Reader and Writer. It might be better to go with something like >> >> InputStream InputStream.nullSource(); >> OutputStream.nullSink(); >> >> and later >> >> Reader.nullSource(); >> Writer.nullSink(); >> >> Another alternative would be simply to reflect the class names in the methods: >> >> InputStream InputStream.nullInputStream(); >> OutputStream.nullOutputStream(); >> >> and later >> >> Reader.nullReader(); >> Writer.nullWriter(); > > I for one prefer this alternative; it's very clear and unambiguous. The second one? Thanks, Brian

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list