Saurabh Pillai wrote:
Campbell Ritchie wrote:Or, in non‑cowboy language, start throwing some Exceptions and get it over and done with. Who needs to do lots of processing when one already knows the result is going to be invalid?
Liutauras Vilda wrote:
Saurabh Pillai wrote:
This signature doesn't make sense to me. Think why.
No.Saurabh Pillai wrote:. . . About the problem with signature, I forgot to add throws clause. Is that it?
Saurabh Pillai wrote:
Liutauras Vilda wrote:
Saurabh Pillai wrote:
This signature doesn't make sense to me. Think why.
Just want to say that this is not copied from production. About the problem with signature, I forgot to add throws clause. Is that it?
Saurabh Pillai wrote:Just want to say that this is not copied from production.
Liutauras Vilda wrote:Now I'm playing silly, you might want to save it to database or something? Then change the method name if that's the case.
Liutauras Vilda wrote:You have comment:
That comment is incorrect. There is a key and a value, not the two keys.
You have some magic number there, which is 25. You either supposed to have a descriptive variable what it represents, or explanation why is 25 there. For example: restricted length on db table's field.
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime. |