commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alfonso da Silva <alfonsodasi...@e-milio.com>
Subject Re: [BeanUtils-Patch] DynaProperty and BasicDynaBean patches
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
Hi!

Ok, I will patch BasicDynaBeanTestCase to include unit test for my
BasicDynaBean patch. I've never work with JUnit, but I'll try to learn
about it ;).

Alf.


El Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:25:57 +0100 robert burrell donkin escribió:

> hi
> 
> i've committed your DynaProperty patch (many thanks) and i like the look 
> of your BasicDynaBean patch. it doesn't have any unit tests, though - and 
> it's important that every new piece of functionality has these. would you 
> mind creating a patch (probably for BasicDynaBeanTestCase) which
> tests the 
> basic functionality you've added (for maps and lists, positive and 
> negative)?
> 
> TIA
> 
> - robert
> 
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Alfonso da Silva wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> >
> > I include DynaProperty and BasicDynaBean patches.
> >
> > I've removed the keyType attribute in the DynaProperty class and I've
> > modified the set(String,int,Object) and set(String,String,Object)
> > methods: Now, if the DynaProperty's contentType attribute isn's null,
> > they verify if the class value is compatible with the contentType.
> >
> >
> > Alf.
> >
> >
> > El Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:16:41 +0100 robert burrell donkin escribió:
> >
> >> On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Alfonso da Silva wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi!
> >>
> >> hi Alfonso
> >>
> >>> I have two doubts:
> >>>
> >>> 1) The present implementation of DynaProperty allows Maps with keys of
> >>> any class. However, the defición of DynaBean only allows String keys.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that he is better to modify DynaProperty to adapt it,
> although
> >>> also exists the possibility of extending the DynaBean interface with:
> >>>
> >>>  -java.lang.Object get(java.lang.String name, java.lang.Object key)
> >>>
> >>>  -void set(java.lang.String name, java.lang.Object key,
> >> java.lang.Object
> >>> value)
> >>>
> >>> But it can cause many problems of compatibility!!!!
> >>>
> >>> If everything is ok, I will modify DynaProperty (and I will
> >> generate diff
> >>> ;) ).
> >>
> >> you're correct that the DynaBean interface only allows stringy keys.
> >> since
> >> it's an interface it'll have to start that way (it cannot be modified
> >> without breaking compatibility).
> >>
> >> i think it's probably ok to (quickly) remove the key type (at least, i
> >> think that this is what you're suggesting) unless anyone else can
> >> think of
> >> a reason why it might be useful.
> >>
> >>> 2) It would be necessary to modify BasicDynaBean to use the new
> >>> functionalities of DynaProperty (if they are implemented, because they
> >>> are optional) or is better to create another implementation of
> Dynabean
> >>> that uses them?
> >>
> >> i'm not how you propose to adapt this class to support this feature. if
> >> you feel like contributing a patch i'll understand a little better 
> and be
> >> able to determine whether it's better to create new classes or
> patch old.
> >>
> >> - robert
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mensaje enviado desde http://www.e-milio.com
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

--
Mensaje enviado desde http://www.e-milio.com

Mime
View raw message