Is this something that also affects 1.1, and if so, is this something
that warrants fixing before 1.2 comes out?
On 5/25/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> I think this is the best thing we can do here.
>
> Andrus
>
> > I modified nullSafeEquals to look like:
> >
> > public static boolean nullSafeEquals(Object obj1, Object obj2)
> > {
> > if (obj1 == null && obj2 == null)
> > return true;
> > else if (obj1 != null)
> > {
> > // Arrays must be handled differently, since equals() does
> > // an == and ignores equivalence
> > if (obj1.getClass().isArray() == false) {
> > return obj1.equals(obj2);
> > }
> > else { // It is an array, so compare the contents
> > EqualsBuilder builder = new EqualsBuilder();
> > builder.append(obj1, obj2);
> > return builder.isEquals();
> > }
> > }
> > else
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts on this? It is currently working in my test application
> > (no more redundant UPDATEs). I tried to put the common case (non-binary
> > byte arrays) first and only do my stuff last ...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > /dev/mrg
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cris Daniluk [mailto:cris.danilu..mail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:32 PM
> > To: cayenne-deve..bjectstyle.org
> > Subject: Re: ObjectStore help ...
> >
> >
> >> I guess we need to change Util.nullSafeEquals() to make it similar to
> >> ObjectId.equals that does "deep" comparison of primitive arrays. The
> >> question is how to do it without too much overhead as "nullSafeEquals"
> > is
> >> used all over the place.
> >>
> >> Andrus
> >>
> > nullSafeEquals is used all over the place, but in general, primitive
> > arrays are not. Shouldn't be a big impact, should it?
> >
> > Cris
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu May 26 2005 - 09:07:52 EDT