commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@generationjava.com>
Subject Re: [BeanUtils] ConvertUtils.convert too restrictive?
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2003 01:52:40 GMT

I think it should.

How is [convert] different to a Transformer?

Hen

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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