commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [lang] MethodUtils
Date Sat, 02 Nov 2002 13:50:45 GMT
On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 01:41 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:


>> my main issue with the current MethodUtils API is that it not precise in
>> it's definition of expected behaviour. the API does not say 'this methods
>> finds conforms to the JLS spec'. since these methods can be called
>> directly (rather than just as part of beanutils or digester where the
>> required behaviour is clear), this lack precision means that people may
>> rely on these features. therefore changing the algorithm might break 
>> their
>> code.
> The comments in [lang] MethodUtils etc. should be tightened. We offer the
> equivalent of:
>  getMethod() accessible
>  getDeclaredMethod() accessible
>  getMethod() ignoring scope
>  getDeclaredMethod() ignoring scope
> The first two should follow the JLS spec. The last two we get to define 
> what
> happens.

sounds good to me. we'd need to think clearly on the definition of those 
ignoring scope and get that fixed before we release. but, there's no 
reason why we'd need to wait until those were finished before releasing 
implementations for those following the JLS rules.

since we're most likely going to end up with a series of methods, any 
ideas about naming conventions?

one alternative to actually including them all in the same class might be 
split into two classes (possibly sharing common code). we might have 
PublicMethodUtils for those following the JLS rules and another class for 
those with looser scope (i can't think of a good name for that class right 

- robert

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

View raw message