Hi! Ok, I will patch BasicDynaBeanTestCase to include unit test for my BasicDynaBean patch. I've never work with JUnit, but I'll try to learn about it ;).
Alf. El Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:25:57 +0100 robert burrell donkin escribi�: > hi > > i've committed your DynaProperty patch (many thanks) and i like the look > of your BasicDynaBean patch. it doesn't have any unit tests, though - and > it's important that every new piece of functionality has these. would you > mind creating a patch (probably for BasicDynaBeanTestCase) which > tests the > basic functionality you've added (for maps and lists, positive and > negative)? > > TIA > > - robert > > On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Alfonso da Silva wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I include DynaProperty and BasicDynaBean patches. > > > > I've removed the keyType attribute in the DynaProperty class and I've > > modified the set(String,int,Object) and set(String,String,Object) > > methods: Now, if the DynaProperty's contentType attribute isn's null, > > they verify if the class value is compatible with the contentType. > > > > > > Alf. > > > > > > El Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:16:41 +0100 robert burrell donkin escribi�: > > > >> On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Alfonso da Silva wrote: > >> > >>> Hi! > >> > >> hi Alfonso > >> > >>> I have two doubts: > >>> > >>> 1) The present implementation of DynaProperty allows Maps with keys of > >>> any class. However, the defici�n of DynaBean only allows String keys. > >>> > >>> I believe that he is better to modify DynaProperty to adapt it, > although > >>> also exists the possibility of extending the DynaBean interface with: > >>> > >>> -java.lang.Object get(java.lang.String name, java.lang.Object key) > >>> > >>> -void set(java.lang.String name, java.lang.Object key, > >> java.lang.Object > >>> value) > >>> > >>> But it can cause many problems of compatibility!!!! > >>> > >>> If everything is ok, I will modify DynaProperty (and I will > >> generate diff > >>> ;) ). > >> > >> you're correct that the DynaBean interface only allows stringy keys. > >> since > >> it's an interface it'll have to start that way (it cannot be modified > >> without breaking compatibility). > >> > >> i think it's probably ok to (quickly) remove the key type (at least, i > >> think that this is what you're suggesting) unless anyone else can > >> think of > >> a reason why it might be useful. > >> > >>> 2) It would be necessary to modify BasicDynaBean to use the new > >>> functionalities of DynaProperty (if they are implemented, because they > >>> are optional) or is better to create another implementation of > Dynabean > >>> that uses them? > >> > >> i'm not how you propose to adapt this class to support this feature. if > >> you feel like contributing a patch i'll understand a little better > and be > >> able to determine whether it's better to create new classes or > patch old. > >> > >> - robert > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Mensaje enviado desde http://www.e-milio.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mensaje enviado desde http://www.e-milio.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
