commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [lang] Converters
Date Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:11:29 GMT
I agree that something should go in [lang].

My proposal is that [lang] contains a 'convertor' subpackage that contains a
factory to obtain a convertor, and implementations for String,
Integer,(...Number), Date, Enum.  ie. the basic types. Once this is settled,
additional types can be considered.
Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Varszegi" <jvarszegi@yahoo.com>
> My Yahoo mail just burped and I don't think it sent my message, but I was
attempting to email you
> a reminder about this.  I don't think we should let it go by the wayside.
>
> Jeff
>
> --- Ola Berg <ola.berg@ports.se> wrote:
> > > I would prefer participation in NEW project [converter].
> > > [lang] is used only for general purpose functionality (if I understand
> > > correctly).
> > > In such case it would be possible to put some specific conversion
> > > functionality. Not only for simple types.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better if the base mechanisms for converter was in lang,
together with
> > conversions for simple types? The specific conversions belong IMO not in
a converter package
> > covering anything from Date to ImaginaryNumber to ResultSet to Money),
but in the different
> > specific packages where they are actually needed. A converter package
containing specific
> > conversions for many sorts of types would be too broad in scope.
> >
> > Instead, the converter mechanism in itself would be really lightweight,
and you only need a
> > dependency to lang (which you probably want anyway, given lang's general
usefulness and small
> > footprint).
> >
> > Another argument: If converter wasn't in lang, we would create cross
dependencies, since chances
> > are that lang can benefit from the basic conversion mechanisms, and that
converter would benefit
> > from lang (and needs to be dependent upon lang if the converter is a
variant of Transformation
> > which is a variant of Closure/Command/Whatever).
> >
> > Basic conversion could live happily in lang together with basic
Predicate logic, other kinds of
> > transformations etc. Conversion is such a basic pattern.
> >
> > /O
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> --
> 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