Hello Adam,
regarding the set<String> I think it is not working on default,
becasue the JspTaglibMojo... I would require to add something like
resolvableTypes.put("java.lang.String[]", "StringArray");
for a Set<String> into that.
(and modify the *set mechanism* inside the mojo for that *propType* too)
and adding a setSetString (or what ever the name is ) method to TagUtils
Do think it is worth that ? Or just stay with String[] and ensure
inside the validator, that Strings are a Set<String> ...
-M
On 10/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I go for the check inside the validator ;)
java.util.Set<String> looks odd
thx for feedback
On 10/28/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should be able to support that. Of course, you have to
> write: java.util.Set<String>, 'cause it's XML... But,
> honestly, I don't know if that's really supported.
>
> You certainly should be checking inside the validator
> that the properties really are strings, since these things
> will get passed around via EL which is definitely *not*
> going to keep generic typesafety intact.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > do we currently support something like
> > java.util.Set<String>
> > for <property-class> ?
> >
> > Or do I need to "check" inside my validator, when reading the
> > *Set-based* property?
> >
> > -M
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
