+1 as well if even mavenners say it's not a problem.
This is where I was fearing!
paul
On 18-May-04, at 01:42 Uhr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
