> In the future, I think we should make that method as well as PropertyKey
> class generic aware.
> I completely agree. I did this on a branch one night but never got around
> to submitting the patch.
that would be great.
-Matthias
>
> -- Blake Sullivan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
> /**
> * This method evaluates the property of the specified bean if it
> supports
> * the specified property key and if the current value is
> <code>null</code>,
> * then evaluate the default value.
> * <p>
> * If the bean does not support the specified key, this method returns
> * <code>null</code>. Unsupported keys occur when the bean's type its
> type
> * returned <code>null</code> from <code>findKey</code> when
> * <code>findTypeConstants</code> method was called.
> * </p>
> *
> * @param bean the property value holder.
> * @param key the key associated to the property to evaluate.
> *
> * @return <code>null</code> if key is <code>null</code>, the current
> * property value in the bean for the specified key if it was
> * set, or the default value if it wasn't.
> *
> * @see
> #findTypeConstants(org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.bean.FacesBean.Type)
> */
> protected Object resolveProperty(FacesBean bean, PropertyKey key)
> {
> if (key == null)
> {
> return null;
> }
>
> Object value = bean.getProperty(key);
> if (value == null)
> {
> value = key.getDefault();
> }
>
> return value;
> }
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2008 7:13 PM, Blake Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Andrew Robinson wrote:
> > > There are static methods on CoreRenderer that I have no idea why they
> > > are static. The two in particular that I noticed:
> > >
> > > static public void renderStyleClass
> > > static public void renderStyleClasses
> > >
> > > These are methods for renderers, why would they be static?
> > >
> > > There are some util style classes that are calling them, because of
> > > this, I would think these methods should be moved into a Util class
> > > and have the Renderer methods invoke the Util ones. IMO, static
> > > utility functions do not belong on classes that are meant to be
> > > extended. Do others agree, or am I solo on this opinion?
> > Andrew, isn't the real problem here that these methods should be on
> > XhtmlRenderer or XhtmlUtils as their implementations are
> > Xhtml-specific. I don't have a problem per se with static methods on
> > extendable classes. However, if the class is going to contain
> > extractable static convenience functions, then it is confusing to have
> > both the class itself and a separate Utils class. Given that we have a
> > separate Utils class, these methods shouldn't be on the abstract class.
> >
> > -- Blake Sullivan
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
