commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [reflect] Proposal: (WAS [BeanUtils] etc...)
Date Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:04:22 GMT
Getting the balance right will be important. I think of Digster here
(although I must confess to not having actually used it!). Digester allows
different projects to setup rules as to how XML is parsed. Some standard
rules are provided. But projects can add their own (that is the key, thus a
config project can have its own rules).

Your simple flat methods are fine for beans following a strict naming
convention. But not all _classes_ do. That doesn't mean that there is no
place for an interface like you suggest, but I'm just trying to be fair to
the requirements yet to be gathered.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ola Berg" <ola.berg@arkitema.se>
To: <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [reflect] Proposal: (WAS [BeanUtils] etc...)


> >The multitude of potential users of this component is
> >huge, they all have
> >current solutions and they all have some peculiarities about them. For
this
> >new component to be successful, we will need to address all of those
> >requirements, which calls for an abstract, configurable and customizable
> >architecture.
>
> I don\'t agree. Well, of course there are many users that do a lot of
stuff in their reflection/introspection packages.
>
> But IMO reflect should be a mere utility for easy use of reflection
(reducing complexity and awkwardness in java.lang.reflect). Other cool
things (like automatic configuration of beans from command line or config
files) do belong in other packages (both examples above should go in a
Configuration framework?).
>
> Those are _users_ of reflection, they don\'t faciliate reflection in
themselves. This doesn\'t call for plugable architectures, and if we end up
with it I believe that we have over-engineered them and missed a clean
separation of concerns.
>
> I think of a Reflection class with static methods like
>
> Reflection.set( Object bean, String propertyName, Object value);
>
> Object o = Reflection.get( Object bean, String propertyName);
>
> Reflection.add( Object bean, String propertyName, Object value);
>
> Reflection.put( Object bean, String propertyName, Object key, Object
value);
>
> Reflection.set( Object bean, String propertyName, int index, Object
value);
>
> Object result = Reflection.call( Object bean, String methodName, Object []
parameterValues);
>
> The internals of a Reflection class could very well use a plugable
framework for insertion of new handy methods and cached lookup of reflection
Method objects (like all getters in a class etc), and some of this
functionality should probably be pluggable (for people to insert new
bean-like naming conventions, maybe using Predicate on methods).
>
> But main functionality exposed as handy methods.
>
> /O
>
> --------------------
> ola.berg@arkitema.se
> 0733 - 99 99 17
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message