> >>It could form a separate commons project. It could provide >>alternative implementations/plugins to the [convert] project. > Plz forgive my delay in following up on this (things got really crazy at work). Anyway, thanks for the suggestion about [convert]; I really like that approach to conversion in general, and have incorporated support for it into Jestr. As of the beta7 release, the jestr.properties file now supports syntax allowing the user to associate any Converter or ConvertRegistry with any arbitrary portion of the object graph. Thus the user can leverage the stringifier selection infrastructure of Jestr (predicates, priorities, etc.) combined with the libraries of converters that may be expected to build on the Converter interface.
I also included a class that implements the Converter interface by delegating to Jestr. Thus Jestr can be treated as "just another to-string converter", which is a nice approach because it insulates the user from dependencies on any particular stringifier implementation, similar to the way [logging] insulates the user from dependencies on any particular logger. See this example for details: http://jestr.sourceforge.net/jestr/examples/example6/package-summary.html As to the question of whether Jestr's feature set should be incorporated into [convert], IMHO this would not be a good idea, for reasons similar to those you list for Jestr being a mismatch in [lang]. For one thing, Jestr is about 5x the size of [convert]. Plus it appears to be contrary to the philosphy of [convert], which seems oriented toward providing (a) interfaces defining what a converter is and (b) basic implementations of converters for fundamental types. Jestr goes *VERY* far beyond this in the particular direction of to-string conversion, and is unconcerned with all other kinds of conversion. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "David Gilliland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:06:58 -0500 >>jestr breaks the goals of lang on grounds of: >>- size >>- dependencies >>- potential to grow >>- 'extensible' >All extremely good points. Just speaking on the matter of size--Jestr would increase >the line count of [lang] by something like 50% and more than triple the number of >classes/interfaces. > >>It could form a separate commons project. It could provide >>alternative implementations/plugins to the [convert] project. >A separate project was my original suggestion. I'm not too familiar with [convert] >but will investigate that. Thanks. > >--David > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
