>-------------- Original message -------------- >From: Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 1/17/06, Gary VanMatre wrote: > > > > >On 1/17/06, Gary VanMatre wrote: > > >> > > >> This seems like a handly utility. Clay has something similar, > > PropUtils, > > >> that uses the ConvertUtils. I think we could refactor to use this > > >> utility. Is there a specific reason that you wanted to factor out > > Commons > > >> BeanUtils? > > > > > > > > >Yes ... it seems to be the source of some memory leaks from not always > > >getting cleaned up at runtime. Plus, when I develop on Windows, > > >commons-beanutils.jar gets left locked a lot, meaning you have to restart > > >your container to be able to do a clean rebuild. > > > > > >This doesn't help a lot right at the moment, because we still inherit the > > >dependency from Digester and the JSF implementation if its bundled. But > > >it's a step down the path of simplifying the dependency hierarchy for > > Shale, > > >especially in a JavaEE 5 world where the JSF implementation will already > > be > > >provided by the container. > > > > That snapped in very nicely :-) > > > Cool. I should, for the record, mention one other practical reason for this > change ... the new ConverterHelper uses the registered by-type converters > that the JSF application is using for everything else, rather than the set > of BeanUtils converters that are registered separately. That would seem to > meet developer expectations better than the way it was before. > > Along the same lines, have you looked at the > > org.apache.shale.usecases.rolodex.GenericComparator? It might be a > > canidate > > for the core utils if we plugged in the FacesContext? > > > I can see how you could leverage PropertyHelper here (and with that it would > make a dandy utility helper class). But I don't think you actually need > type conversion support, right? If so, we don't need to worry about a > FacesContext. The PropertyHelper methods do not need one. >
Oh ya, that's true. We wouldn't need the context. That should be a slam dunk. I'll move that one over. > >>Gary > > >Craig > > Gary > > > > > Craig > Gary
