commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sgarlata Matt" <sgarlata_m...@bah.com>
Subject Re: [beanutils] some ideas
Date Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:20:44 GMT
Robert, thanks for pointing out that these issues have been discussed
before.  Here are the two threads I could find:
http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg17188.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg05085.html


Hen, let me be honest and say I'm not quite sure I understand all your ideas
regarding registries, but it sounds like a different approach to the same
problems discussed in the first thread above, right?

All, it sounds like there is interest in improving ConvertUtils.  Before we
discuss *how* we are going to improve it, let's discuss *what* we want to
improve.  From what I can tell these are the deficiencies that have been
identified so far:
- Converters must be registered for each type, and subtypes do not inherit
converters.  In one of the threads above someone mentioned this is
particular a problem when dealing with Enumerations.
- The current system of one converter per object leads to a monolithic
converter and is not flexible enough.  It would be nice to define converts
for a pair of classes, such as Date -> Long instead of Date -> anything and
everything.
- (I'm not as sure about this) ConvertUtils only allows a single set of
conversion rules to exist, since it is a static class.  It would be good if
different conversions could be defined for different circumstances.

Can anyone think of any others?

Matt


Mime
View raw message