Robert, thanks for pointing out that these issues have been discussed before. Here are the two threads I could find: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg17188.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05085.html
Hen, let me be honest and say I'm not quite sure I understand all your ideas regarding registries, but it sounds like a different approach to the same problems discussed in the first thread above, right? All, it sounds like there is interest in improving ConvertUtils. Before we discuss *how* we are going to improve it, let's discuss *what* we want to improve. From what I can tell these are the deficiencies that have been identified so far: - Converters must be registered for each type, and subtypes do not inherit converters. In one of the threads above someone mentioned this is particular a problem when dealing with Enumerations. - The current system of one converter per object leads to a monolithic converter and is not flexible enough. It would be nice to define converts for a pair of classes, such as Date -> Long instead of Date -> anything and everything. - (I'm not as sure about this) ConvertUtils only allows a single set of conversion rules to exist, since it is a static class. It would be good if different conversions could be defined for different circumstances. Can anyone think of any others? Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
