hi Felix,
The return type can also vary so we have to either return Object ( the current
case) or may be we can return Value<T> instead just like the way Emmanuel
proposed to accept Value<T> as a parameter
--
Kiran Ayyagari
Felix Knecht wrote:
> Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
>> Felix Knecht wrote:
>>> Without knowing the exact context ...
>>>
>>> Why is the method definition of return type Object and not String?
>>> Wouldn't it be better to be as specific as possible?
>>>
>> Because we can deal with either String or byte[], so we use Object
>> instead. This can be re-evaluated, as now we are using Value<T> instead.
>>
>
> But what you return is 'String strValue'. I'm talking about the returned type not the
parameter.
>
|