BeanUtils looks good to me too, for generic bean operations. I can't see replacing it, it seems to works great.
Jelly does have a few situations that want non-standard string-to-property mappings, like int properties that want names instead of integer values in the tag attributes. This is supported in a generic way by the jelly UseBeanTag and used in several places like the Swing tags. The way it's supported may look a little inelegant in the code but I agree that it's certainly not due to some huge deficiency in the BeanUtils. -----Original Message----- From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 3:34 PM To: Jakarta Commons Users List Subject: Re: Jelly and a new beta release 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]
