Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: How to handle same sanity checks
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 12:06:28 +0200
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <er6rt5FbgtsU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <87o9tgo0a9.fsf@munus.decebal.nl> <oig626$4rf$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 13LT4qr0XZ9V49gmAbdrUgwDYzrm3YWxpQUnMuzPbE5yHumpI=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:93G2njXnyhwi5ZjhEhp0y9wjpcU=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
In-Reply-To: <oig626$4rf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:36711

On 22.06.2017 12:27, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> I agree that using such a method would tidy up the calling code, but if I
> used this type of method I'd generalise it to something like this:
> 
>     private void checkInRange(int n,
>                               int lowLimit,
>                               int highLimit,
>                               String error)
>     {
>        String format = "%s: %d is outside range %d - %d";
>        if ((n < lowLimit) || (n > highLimit))
>           throw new InvalidParameterException(
>                 String.format(format,error, n, lowLimit, highLimit));
>     }

Premature modularization.  That makes only sense if the variability is 
needed.  Since this is a private method (which should be static btw.) I 
would only do the minimum what is needed.

Cheers

	robert


-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/