db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthew T. Adams" <matthew.ad...@xcalia.com>
Subject RE: SingleFieldIdentity.toString()
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:04:22 GMT
Yeah, I take it all back; color me stupid on that one.  What I was
really requesting was something like

public ByteIdentity(Class clazz, String key) {
    this(clazz, Byte.parseByte(key));
}

Since we're only one Xxx.parseXxx(String) away, I question the value and
hereby, offically and ceremoniously withdraw the proposal.

--matthew

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Russell [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:25 PM
>To: JDO Expert Group; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SingleFieldIdentity.toString()
>
>
>Hi Patrick,
>
>On Mar 30, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
>> Well, we already have:
>>
>> public ByteIdentity(Class target, String s) {
>>         this (pcClass, Byte.parseByte(justTheId(str)));
>> }
>
>This was not the question. Matthew asked about:
>
>public ByteIdentity(String s)
>
>which doesn't make sense because you would construct an instance of a 
>JDO identity class that didn't know what kind of object it was the key 
>for. If all you want is a wrapper around a byte, use java.lang.Byte. 
>The key piece of the ByteIdentity is that an instance unambiguously 
>represents the identity of a particular instance in the datastore (and 
>cache).
>
>Craig
>>
>> where clearly, justTheId() can go away now.
>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2005, at 7:22 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:
>>
>>> If we get rid of the targetClassName in the toString() return value,
>>> does that make it easier to provide overloaded String-arg 
>constructors
>>> on the SingleFieldIdentity subclasses (except StringIdentity of 
>>> course,
>>> which already has a String-arg constructor)?  For example,
>>>
>>> // in class ByteIdentity
>>> public ByteIdentity(String s) {
>>>     this(Byte.parseByte(s));
>>> }
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> This might be convenient, letting Xxx.parseXxx(String) 
>throw whatever 
>>> it
>>> may.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> --matthew
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Matthew T. Adams [mailto:matthew.adams@xcalia.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:17 PM
>>>> To: jdo-experts-ext@sun.com; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: SingleFieldIdentity.toString()
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree as well.  I thought it was there for some reason that I 
>>>> didn't
>>>> remember or couldn't figure out.
>>>>
>>>> --matthew
>>>>
>>>> "Wes Biggs" <wes@tralfamadore.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<mailman.4645.1112226133.10966.jdo-general@jdo-experts.org>...
>>>>> Abe White wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought it would be nice for debugging to see the target class
>>>> name
>>>>>>> in the toString.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm against this.  It makes ids in URLs longer, makes parsing
>>>> harder,
>>>>>> and is unnecessary in general, IMO.  It also leads to possible
>>>>>> inconsistencies with the class encoded in the string and 
>the class
>>>>>> given to the String constructor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with Abe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Patrick Linskey
>> SolarMetric Inc.
>>
>>
>Craig Russell
>Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>



Mime
View raw message