Geoff, I'm all in favour of your proposal and now call for a vote on it: Accept Geoff's patch:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06871.html [ ] +1 (Agree and will help) [ ] +0 (Agree) [ ] -1 (Don't agree and here's why) Here's my +1. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Geoffrey Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 18/05/2004 01:40:46 AM: > A couple of weeks ago I posted a message concerning the implications of > the BeanUtils.setProperty() method: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06999.html > > I subsequently submitted a patch which resolves the issue, including a > custom Converter implementation which aims to maintain backwards > compatibility with the current behavior: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06871.html > > There were concerns that switching from BeanUtils.setProperty() to > BeanUtils.copyProperty() might cause unforeseen problems with existing > scripts due to differences in logic between those methods, but without > an example script this remains only a hypothesis. > > The discussion has since ceased, with no clear resolution. I would like > to restart the thread in the hopes of gaining some closure to the issue. > > Many thanks. > Geoff. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
