Yeah, I take it all back; color me stupid on that one. What I was
really requesting was something like
public ByteIdentity(Class clazz, String key) {
this(clazz, Byte.parseByte(key));
}
Since we're only one Xxx.parseXxx(String) away, I question the value and
hereby, offically and ceremoniously withdraw the proposal.
--matthew
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:25 PM
>To: JDO Expert Group; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: SingleFieldIdentity.toString()
>
>
>Hi Patrick,
>
>On Mar 30, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
>> Well, we already have:
>>
>> public ByteIdentity(Class target, String s) {
>> this (pcClass, Byte.parseByte(justTheId(str)));
>> }
>
>This was not the question. Matthew asked about:
>
>public ByteIdentity(String s)
>
>which doesn't make sense because you would construct an instance of a
>JDO identity class that didn't know what kind of object it was the key
>for. If all you want is a wrapper around a byte, use java.lang.Byte.
>The key piece of the ByteIdentity is that an instance unambiguously
>represents the identity of a particular instance in the datastore (and
>cache).
>
>Craig
>>
>> where clearly, justTheId() can go away now.
>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2005, at 7:22 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:
>>
>>> If we get rid of the targetClassName in the toString() return value,
>>> does that make it easier to provide overloaded String-arg
>constructors
>>> on the SingleFieldIdentity subclasses (except StringIdentity of
>>> course,
>>> which already has a String-arg constructor)? For example,
>>>
>>> // in class ByteIdentity
>>> public ByteIdentity(String s) {
>>> this(Byte.parseByte(s));
>>> }
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> This might be convenient, letting Xxx.parseXxx(String)
>throw whatever
>>> it
>>> may.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> --matthew
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Matthew T. Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:17 PM
>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: SingleFieldIdentity.toString()
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree as well. I thought it was there for some reason that I
>>>> didn't
>>>> remember or couldn't figure out.
>>>>
>>>> --matthew
>>>>
>>>> "Wes Biggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>>> Abe White wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought it would be nice for debugging to see the target class
>>>> name
>>>>>>> in the toString.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm against this. It makes ids in URLs longer, makes parsing
>>>> harder,
>>>>>> and is unnecessary in general, IMO. It also leads to possible
>>>>>> inconsistencies with the class encoded in the string and
>the class
>>>>>> given to the String constructor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with Abe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Linskey
>> SolarMetric Inc.
>>
>>
>Craig Russell
>Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
