On 10/4/05, Costin Leau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello again. > > I'd like to open another issue: the converters. > 1. There is no Converter interface - this is one package where an > interface is BADLY needed
There 3 kind of converters : * ObjectConverter : convert a pojo object or bean fields * AtomicTypeConverter : convert simple types * CollectionConverter : a complete collection with different mapping style (there 2 implementation but you can defined your own) Some refactoring is required here. Only CollectionConverter is interface based (until now). 2. AbstarctAtomicTypeConverter should be AbstractAtomicTypeConverter ? 4. the methods on the AtomicConverter and the converter concept and > plugability are contradictory. The atomic converter specifies through > the getJavaTypes what classes it should be used for the > getJcrValueFromJavaObject specifies that " The mapping framework > ensures, that only objects of the types returned by getJavaTypes are > forwarded to this method." > This means in short that the converters can't be used for other types > other then the ones they have been design for. > For example if I want to use the Date converter on an object that has > the same contract, even though I am register it manually it will not > work. > The converter should do the conversion and that's it - it's the > framework job to do the rest especially if it forces the developer to > supply the map of converters. Basically you have to write code in two > parts to do the same thing. getJavaTypes can be dropped, it is not used now. I don't understand you, the converter makes conversions and that's all. Christophe
