commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Rall <...@finemaltcoding.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] RESULT XxxUtils constructors
Date Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:18:35 GMT
"Michael A. Smith" <mas@apache.org> writes:

> public class Util {
>   public StringUtils string() { return null; }
>   public ObjectUtils object() { return null; }
>   public CollectionUtils collection() { return null; }
> }
> 
> $foo.string().method()
> 
> 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:
> 
> $foo.string.method()
> 
> (i.e. without the "()")
> 
> Is there a reason velocity users can't use this?  Doesn't this bridge 
> the bean to non-bean gap?

It works, but it's not backwards compatible, nor very fair to one of
the projects which (in part) orginated the code in question and that
the Commons documentation system is based on.  *shrug*

If a non-private ctor isn't going to fly, it's probably the best
option proposed so far.
-- 

Daniel Rall <dlr@finemaltcoding.com>

--
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