I suppose we could collaborate on it like we did with UEL. When I have it finished I'll post how-tos on the mailing list. We can go from there in the Wiki.
-Adrian --- On Sun, 11/8/09, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Discussion: Improved Java Object Type Conversion > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 1:11 AM > Thanks Adrian, > > This will be really useful. Do you plan to create a small > doc wiht examples (I may help) or only API doc ? > > Jacques > > From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]> > >I just checked in the new conversion code. Some work > still needs to be done on it. > > > > When it is finished, users will be able to introduce > custom Java object types into the framework. This will make > the framework > > more flexible and extensible. > > > > Using Harmeet's phone number example, we will be able > to do things like: > > > > <entity-one entity-name="TelecomNumber" > value-field="phoneNumberValue"/> > > <set field="phoneNumber" > from-field="phoneNumberValue" type="PhoneNumber"/> > > <!-- Do something with phoneNumber --> > > > > -Adrian > > > > > > --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Adrian Crum <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> From: Adrian Crum <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Discussion: Improved Java Object Type > Conversion > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 4:08 PM > >> I have an idea for improved Java > >> object type conversion (converting from one Java > object type > >> to another), and I would like to solicit comments > from the > >> community. > >> > >> Currently, the project handles object type > conversions in > >> the ObjectType.simpleTypeConvert(...) method, and > there are > >> small conversion code snippets in other classes > >> (UtilDateTime for example). Basically, object > type > >> conversion is scattered all over the project. This > can lead > >> to code inconsistency, or inconsistent conversion > results. > >> > >> I think it would be helpful to consolidate object > type > >> conversion into a simple "framework" that can be > easily > >> extended to handle additional conversions. > >> > >> I came up with a simple interface: > >> > >> public interface Converter<T, F> { > >> public T to(F obj); > >> } > >> > >> where T is the object type to convert to, and F is > the > >> object type to convert from. > >> > >> A factory class is used to get a Converter > instance: > >> > >> public class ConverterFactory { > >> public static <T, F> Converter<T, > >> F> getConverter(Class<T> toClass, > Class<F> > >> fromClass) {} > >> } > >> > >> To convert an object: > >> > >> String str = "1234"; > >> Converter<Long, String> converter = > ConverterFactory > >> .getConverter(Long.class, String.class); > >> Long result = converter.to(str); > >> > >> The framework would include converter > implementations for > >> all the conversions currently being used. The > >> ObjectType.simpleTypeConvert(...) method's > complicated > >> if-else code would be replaced with the simpler > converter > >> code. > >> > >> Users can write their own converters and > "register" them > >> with the converter framework. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> -Adrian > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
