Regards
Azrael Noor
Azrael Noor wrote:This seems to me disgusting
luck, db
There are no new questions, but there may be new answers.
Regards
Azrael Noor
Azrael Noor wrote:should i have to declare things like that only, any alternative...
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
rather than banging you head against the wall and being disgusted with Java
how about thinking up some creatively painful things to do with the reproductive parts of the person who wrote the monstrosity that put you in this mess in the first place?
The only alternative is to refactor your source code so that references to both of the ambiguous classes don't appear in the same source file.
Regards
Azrael Noor
Azrael Noor wrote:
The only alternative is to refactor your source code so that references to both of the ambiguous classes don't appear in the same source file.
I have no approach to Source Code and lets say if i decompile it and rewrite all confuse things again then i will get a hard kick on my ...
You could write some new "bridging" classes that simply extend the other classes directly but give them different names. Then use the bridging classes instead. Since they extend the other classes, you can still use them the same way you would use the other classes but you don't have to use the old names or the fully qualified names
Regards
Azrael Noor
Azrael Noor wrote:
1) To Declare Variables on Top with null and use somewhere in bottom is old style so called hungarian notation which should be avoided
Junilu Lacar wrote:
Azrael Noor wrote:
1) To Declare Variables on Top with null and use somewhere in bottom is old style so called hungarian notation which should be avoided
Those are two separate issues. Hungarian notation is called such because it was developed by Charles Simonyi. The name objRTyping is an example of a name that uses Hungarian notation where "obj" is intended to indicate the type of the reference. This is not needed in Java because most everything is an object anyway. The 'obj' in the name just makes it more difficult to read the code.
As for your original question and your current approach, I don't understand it fully but if it works for you, I guess that's fine.
Regards
Azrael Noor
Azrael Noor wrote:
Part of standards use obj before object name. the person who told to do so done coder of 90's :p
He needs to get out of the 90s and throw away those old, outdated habits. Hungarian notation in Java code IS NOT GOOD and it is an anacronism in a coding standard for a language like Java.
Regards
Azrael Noor
Junilu Lacar wrote:
Azrael Noor wrote:
1) To Declare Variables on Top with null and use somewhere in bottom is old style so called hungarian notation which should be avoided
Those are two separate issues. Hungarian notation is called such because it was developed by Charles Simonyi. The name objRTyping is an example of a name that uses Hungarian notation where "obj" is intended to indicate the type of the reference. This is not needed in Java because most everything is an object anyway. The 'obj' in the name just makes it more difficult to read the code.
Regards
Azrael Noor
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs. |