On 7 Sep 2004, at 21:16, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
<snip>
Btw, BeanUtils has had a refactoring started since jelly-beta-3 release (by Robert Burrell Donkin) and I know we could take advantage of it into Jelly...
FWIW i think that it's not beanutils that's the problem but understanding what need it is satisfying in jelly. i'd recommend not going down the creation-a-homegrown-beanutils-replacement route since this has proved (in the past) to be very unlikely to produce anything much better but is likely to be a lot of work.
beanutils (surprisingly enough) isn't so slow (at least with the modern JVMs from sun). unless jelly's needs have been well analyzed, there a risk of losing quite a lot of functionality for minimal real life performance gain.
IMHO the real problem with beanutils is more a lack of flexibility, configurability and tunability (rather than straight speed). it may be that it'd be better for jelly to address these shortcomings by factoring out based on it's needs (rather than just ripping out beanutils).
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
