i'm looking for some help on how to simplify a con...

# codereview

[tipsy]

i'm looking for some help on how to simplify a concept i've been working on. currently i have a Validator class, which can be turned into a TypedValidator class by calling asInt, asDouble, etc: https://github.com/tipsy/javalin/blob/master/src/main/java/io/javalin/validation/Validator.kt

the problem is that i have some duplicated functionality that i'd like to get rid of, but i can't think of any (simple) way of doing that

[Andreas Sinz]

You want to de-duplicate those functions?

[uli]

Doesn't asClass<Int> work?

[tipsy]

yes @Andreas Sinz, that would be nice

[Andreas Sinz]

@tipsy should T::class.java be limited to just a couple of types?

[tipsy]

No, any type should be fine if you use asClass

[uli]

Why do you need asInt? And if you need it, can't you define it as fun asInt = asClass<Int>

[tipsy]

@uli you can't just cast strings directly, you need to register a converter for each (the API also has to work from java). asInt(), asDouble() etc are the most common types, which is why i've included them by default

[tipsy]

if you need it, can't you define it as fun asInt = asClass<Int>

that i can do! thanks

[Andreas Sinz]

@tipsy what is the difference between asClass<Int>() and asInt() = asClass(Int::class.java)? is the latter actually needed?

[tipsy]

asInt() is a lot easier to read and write than asClass(Integer.class)

[tipsy]

this is also being used from java

[Andreas Sinz]

if you put java in the mix, yes. in a pure kotlin project asClass<Int>() is not much worse than asInt()

[tipsy]

java is in the mix, sorry ^^

[tipsy]

i think i can make the TypedValidator a base class, i just haven't quite figured out how yet

[tipsy]

got it, thanks to both of you!

[andries.fc]

I would move all the asClass<..>() as extension functions. They are only there as an API, and the core of the functionality is implemented anyway in the fun <T> asClass(clazz: Class<T>): TypedValidator<T>.