On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:56 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:12:56 +0000
From: robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [beanutils] bug#17036 PropertyUtils doesn't recognise "normal"
    properties on a DynaBean

PropertyUtils doesn't recognise "normal" properties on a DynaBean (see
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17036).

can anyone think of any good reasons why i shouldn't change beanutils so
that normal properties are available if none of the dynabean properties
match?

Personally, I think that doing this would be *really* confusing. Just for one example, consider how one determines the names of all the properties supported by a DynaBean instance:

  DynaProperty properties[] = dynaBean.getDynaClass().getDynaProperties()
;

In today's implementation, the set of properties you get back represents
100% of the set of things that can be manipulated via get() and set()
calls -- and you will get IAE if you try them with any other name.  If you
make the proposed change, that's no longer the case -- but it is hard to
argue that we should synthesize DynaProperty instances for the "real" bean
properties as well, because they are *not* dynamic properties.

i think i agree with the argument that DyanClass to work correctly, the DynaProperty's returned should accurately represent all the properties that the DynaBean possesses. i also agree that synthesizing DynaProperty for the standard properties is probably going to lead to more problems than it solves.


A second confusion relates to whether or not sets through the standard
bean setter can be read by the dynamic getter, and vice versa:

  dynaBean.set("foo", "bar");
  dynaBean.setFoo("baz");
  String whatDoYouGet = (String) dynaBean.get("foo");
  // What do you get?

Logically, you would want to require that this return "baz" -- but that
means we would break every existing DynaBean implementation class that
already exists.  If you don't require this, then it's going to lead to all
sorts of bugs when users assume that it works that way.

I don't like it.  If you want to manipulate the standard JavaBeans
properties of a DynaBean implementation, you should just call them
directly :-)  or else use reflection yourself.

+1


i'll mark this one as WONTFIX

- robert


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to