commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [BeanUtils] ConvertUtils.convert too restrictive?
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:40:50 GMT
Maybe we should consider a new [convert] project at commons? Just a thought.

Stephen

From: "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [BeanUtils] ConvertUtils.convert too restrictive?


> hi scott
>
> (you seem in a very argumentative mood. i'll try to avoid taking the bait.
> )
>
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 09:57 PM, Scott Howlett wrote:
>
> > Why does this function:
> >
> >     ConvertUtils.convert(String value, Class type)
> >
> > require a String argument? All it does is dispatch to some Converter
> > that can take any Object, so this restriction seems unnecessary. It
> > causes callers to have to convert to string first which may sometimes
> > not be desirable.
>
> i suspect that the reason for this is that ConvertUtils was designed to
> handle string to object conversions (rather than object-to-object ones).
> when examined from this perspective, the signature is very reasonable.
>
> > In particular this seems to cause problems with BeanUtils.setProperty().
> > I asked the same question in a comment on this bug:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16525
> >
> > but I haven't heard anything.
>
> the beanutils bug lists have a very large backlog.
>
> the issue boils down to the fact that ConvertUtils is design to perform
> string-to-object conversions rather than more general object-to-object
> conversions. i'd say that the most satisfactory to solve both your problem
> and the more general issue would be to subclass PropertyUtilBean or add a
> pluggable strategy which would allow any compliant implementation to be
> used.
>
> > Oh - while I'm asking, why do Converter objects bother taking a type
> > argument at all? None of the converters I looked at bother to use it -
> > they just assume they're converting to the type they were registered
> > for. If this usage is widespread, perhaps a new version without the type
> > argument ought to be created and the existing one deprecated.
>
> setting aside that this is not going to happen (due to backward
> compatibility issues), just because most people don't use a particular
> feature doesn't mean that it should be removed. i know that there are
> users who use this feature. whatever the faults that beanutils exhibits,
> thankfully the code isn't so bloated yet that we need to consider removing
> features used only by minorities.
>
> - robert
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message