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 00:22:30 GMT
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
>
>
>



Mime
View raw message