Maybe we should consider a new [convert] project at commons? Just a thought.
Stephen From: "robert burrell donkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [BeanUtils] ConvertUtils.convert too restrictive? > hi scott > > (you seem in a very argumentative mood. i'll try to avoid taking the bait. > ) > > On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 09:57 PM, Scott Howlett wrote: > > > Why does this function: > > > > ConvertUtils.convert(String value, Class type) > > > > require a String argument? All it does is dispatch to some Converter > > that can take any Object, so this restriction seems unnecessary. It > > causes callers to have to convert to string first which may sometimes > > not be desirable. > > i suspect that the reason for this is that ConvertUtils was designed to > handle string to object conversions (rather than object-to-object ones). > when examined from this perspective, the signature is very reasonable. > > > In particular this seems to cause problems with BeanUtils.setProperty(). > > I asked the same question in a comment on this bug: > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16525 > > > > but I haven't heard anything. > > the beanutils bug lists have a very large backlog. > > the issue boils down to the fact that ConvertUtils is design to perform > string-to-object conversions rather than more general object-to-object > conversions. i'd say that the most satisfactory to solve both your problem > and the more general issue would be to subclass PropertyUtilBean or add a > pluggable strategy which would allow any compliant implementation to be > used. > > > Oh - while I'm asking, why do Converter objects bother taking a type > > argument at all? None of the converters I looked at bother to use it - > > they just assume they're converting to the type they were registered > > for. If this usage is widespread, perhaps a new version without the type > > argument ought to be created and the existing one deprecated. > > setting aside that this is not going to happen (due to backward > compatibility issues), just because most people don't use a particular > feature doesn't mean that it should be removed. i know that there are > users who use this feature. whatever the faults that beanutils exhibits, > thankfully the code isn't so bloated yet that we need to consider removing > features used only by minorities. > > - robert > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
