db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Linskey <...@solarmetric.com>
Subject Re: SingleFieldIdentity.toString()
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:28:50 GMT
Well, we already have:

public ByteIdentity(Class target, String s) {
         this (pcClass, Byte.parseByte(justTheId(str)));
}

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.


Mime
View raw message