Deja Vu :) +1

Jan-2005:http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-commons-dev/200501.mbox/[EMAIL
 PROTECTED]
Feb-2005:http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-commons-dev/200502.mbox/[EMAIL
 PROTECTED]

Various ClassLoader issues raised by Stephen, we agreed to hold off
until after 2.1; so now is a good time.

Hen

On 9/5/05, Thomas Dudziak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Ups, only replied to Wade, not the list)
> 
> On 9/5/05, Wade Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > What's a use case for it Tom?  curious.
> 
> I just checked-in an enhancement for OJB that allows to specify which
> constructor/factory-method to utilize for constructing objects read
> from the database. These can have parameters which are described by
> corresponding parameter element:
> 
>       <creation-descriptor
>           type="factory"
>           factory-class="org.apache.ojb.broker.ObjectTestFactory"
>           factory-method="createInstance"
>       >
>         <parameter field-ref="name"/>
>         <parameter field-ref="value" type="int[]"/>
>       </creation-descriptor>
> 
> The optional type attribute allows the user to explicitly specify the
> parameter type thus helping OJB finding the correct constructor/method
> (in case of overload).
> 
> Now if I'd use plain Class.forName, the user would have to specify:
> 
> [LI
> 
> for this int array which is hardly user-friendly. The solution that I
> added, allows for the normal type specification as is used in variable
> declarations or for method parameters.
> 
> Tom
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>

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

Reply via email to