I have now also written the set() portion for lists, as well as tests. What do you think about it? Want me to commit for people to see/test, then rollback later if needed?
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Sanders > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:42 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [PATCH] - PropertyUtils - bug 5639 > > > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Is it just that no one is watching out for PropertyUtils, or the > > > people who usually watch on it are busy? > > > > > > > The latter. > > > > There is also an important philosophical issue here -- it > > breaks conformance with standard JavaBeans definition of the > > semantics for indexed properties, which does *not* include > > List based support. That's worth some reflective discussion > > first, and (so far) I remain somewhat unconvinced that we > > should deviate here. > > > I would think that we *should* deviate. I would assume that > this would > be very useful, even if it doesn't follow the standard JavaBeans > definition. In the end, it is all about easier access to an > object. I > think List access as an index adds value. But the question > is, what do > you so if you want to set() an indexed List property? > > Scott > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
