Question

123

What is the best standard style for a toString implementation?

rated 0 times [ 130] [ 7] / answers: 1 / hits: 19521 / 14 Years ago, fri, october 15, 2010, 12:00:00

We have a lot of objects for which we like to implement a simple toString to output attributes of the object. Some of these attributes may be complex objects themselves.

Is there any standard, or simply just a best practice for a style? I'm thinking something like:

[SimpleClassName] { prop1:value, prop2:value }

In which case a nested value would look like:

[SimpleClassName] { prop1:value, prop2:[NestedObject] { prop3:value}}

We are using Java but I find myself asking the same question in most languages!

Answers

Only authorized users can answer the question. Please sign in first, or register a free account.

nikoguym

Add To Favorites

Follow

Total Points: 339

Total Questions: 106

Total Answers: 95

Location: Mali

Member since Sat, Feb 12, 2022

2 Years ago

answered 14 Years ago jarrodfletchers · Accepted Answer

Personally, I find the mix of [] and {} not so easy to get an immediate view of the hierarchy.

I like this format (and I've seen it being used in a number of places):

SimpleClassName[prop1=value, prop2=value]

SimpleClassName[prop1=value, prop2=NestedObject[prop3=value]]

There's also the possibility to add an identifier with @, for example the default style for the commons-lang ToStringBuilder does that (using its own example):

Person@182f0db[name=John Doe,age=33,smoker=false]