commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Smith" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] RESULT XxxUtils constructors
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:25:32 GMT
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> there is no consensus.


> > (Although we could probably argue about it forever ;-)
> the problem is that pushing this forward against opposition bodes ill for 
> a project that is attempting to encourage code reuse. the class was 
> developed in velocity but it can no longer be used. instead, the stated 
> position of the privateers is that velocity needs to be changed. other 
> projects and component beware.

I don't think anyone said that velocity *needs* to change.  As far as I
can remember, the "privateers" asked why commons needs to make beans out
of decidedly non-bean classes rather than velocity accepting non-bean
classes.  Just because velocity says "beans-only", doesn't mean that the
Utils need to be made into beans when they are not.

In other words, we have some component (e.g. Velocity) that only works 
on beans, and another component (e.g. StringUtils) that is not a bean, 
and we're trying to get them to work together.  To begin with, it 
already seems like a bad mix.  Neither side wants to change things (i.e. 
velocity doesn't want to accept non-bean classes to allow static method 
invocation on them, and us "privateers" don't want to make a non-bean 
class into a bean).  

However, that doesn't mean that things can't work without making one of 
the "sides" change to accomodate the other.  Paul posted a perfectly 
reasonable bridge between the two, and I don't think anyone has posted a 
reason why it couldn't be used:

public class Util {
  public StringUtils string() { return null; }
  public ObjectUtils object() { return null; }
  public CollectionUtils collection() { return null; }


And, although I'm not that familiar with velocity, I'm guessing you 
could get even do:

public class Util {
  public StringUtils getString() { return null; }
  public ObjectUtils getObject() { return null; }
  public Collectionutils getCollection() { return null; }

then, you could use:


(i.e. without the "()")

Is there a reason velocity users can't use this?  Doesn't this bridge 
the bean to non-bean gap?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message