On 10/9/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I haven't, but I think the JavaBeans standard is actually much more
>> pervasive than most folks realize
Which is a very good thing. I'm quite familiar with the full spec, and I'm
very happy that 99% of Java developers only know (or at least use) 1% of it.
I suppose I get the part about using only a small percentage of the
capabilities, but I'd personally be happier if more developers had a
more complete understanding of the spec. Even (especially?) if they
come to the conclusion that it's to be avoided.
>> How about the possibility of plugging-in custom Probe/ProbeFactory
>> impls? I'm assuming that would be a feature request?
Yes...but to be honest, that wouldn't come any time soon. There is already
an interface called Probe that I beleve most of the iBATIS code uses as a
facade in front of ClassInfo.
I'm sure it wouldn't be a high priority. The Probe interface is fine,
it looks like the real roadblock to custimization is actually
ProbeFactory.
Cheers,
Clinton
On 10/9/06, Kris Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Only two reasons:
> >
> > 1) Performance. At the time (not sure about now) ClassInfo was much
faster
> > than BeanUtils.
>
> Understood. I wasn't suggesting that iBATIS should use BeanUtils, it
> was just an example of extending JavaBeans while maintaining
> compatibility.
>
> > 2) More important -- I never thought in a million years anyone would
ever
> > touch that nightmare of an API ... BeanInfo.
> >
> > Seriously...I would strongly recommend you avoid that stuff. You're
> > wandering a path full of complexity and verbosity with very little
benefit.
> >
> > Don't fall for "Sun Standards". I did, and iBATIS is worse for it.
>
> I haven't, but I think the JavaBeans standard is actually much more
> pervasive than most folks realize, especially in the J2EE world (and
> no, I'm not confusing JavaBeans with EJB). I won't claim to have seen
> widespread use of the BeanInfo facilities though.
>
> How about the possibility of plugging-in custom Probe/ProbeFactory
> impls? I'm assuming that would be a feature request?
>
> > Cheers,
> > Clinton
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > On 10/9/06, Kris Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Not sure if this should be a dev list discussion, but I'll start it
> > > here and see where it leads...
> > >
> > > I guess I never realized this, but iBATIS doesn't seem to honor
> > > BeanInfo classes. For example, given this class:
> > >
> > > public class Foo {
> > > private String name;
> > > public String name() { return this.name; }
> > > public void name(String name) { this.name = name; }
> > > }
> > >
> > > and its BeanInfo:
> > >
> > > import java.beans.*;
> > > import java.lang.reflect.*;
> > > public class FooBeanInfo extends SimpleBeanInfo {
> > > private static final Class BEAN_CLASS = Foo.class;
> > > public PropertyDescriptor[] getPropertyDescriptors() {
> > > PropertyDescriptor[] props = null;
> > > try {
> > > Method nameReadMethod =
> > BEAN_CLASS.getDeclaredMethod("name", null);
> > > Method nameWriteMethod =
> > > BEAN_CLASS.getDeclaredMethod("name", new Class[] {
> > String.class });
> > > props = new PropertyDescriptor[] { new
> > > PropertyDescriptor("name", nameReadMethod, nameWriteMethod) };
> > > } catch (NoSuchMethodException ignore) {
> > > } catch (IntrospectionException ignore) {
> > > }
> > > return props;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > com.ibatis.common.beans.ClassInfo reports that the
bean
> > has a single,
> > > read-only property called "class". However, java.beans.Introspector
> > > reports that it has a read/write property called "name". Was there a
> > > reason to ignore the existing JavaBeans framework and implement custom
> > > introspection? I can understand the need to extend the core JavaBeans
> > > framework to support features like List-based indexed properties or
> > > mapped properties, but that can be done without breaking
> > > compatibility. For example, Jakarta Commons BeanUtils implements both
> > > of those previously mentioned features, but also honors BeanInfo.
> > >
> > > In addition, if someone wanted to override the current implementation,
> > > I don't see a way to plug in a different Probe/ProbeFactory. Is there
> > > any way to do that?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --
> Kris Schneider <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
