On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 01:53 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: <snip>
using the word 'exact' would cause confusion with the existing MethodUtils names. (exact in this context means exactly what the JVM getMethod returns.I want to keep the same naming pattern accross the three classes, and although I'm not wedded to these precice names, they do seem to work quite well.
)
i'd also prefer something more descriptive. maybe something like
invokeMethodClassOnly
i think i'd also prefer the break scope methods to be separated by their signatures rather than parameters. so maybe something like
invokeMethodClassOnlyIgnoreScope
an alternative might be to use different classes and have PublicMethodUtils and IgnoreScopeMethodUtils. then we'd have
PublicMethodUtils,invokeMethodClassOnly
and
IgnoreScopeMethodUtils.invokeMethodClassOnly
The extra factor in Methods as opposed to Fields (at least how I coded it)it would probably be useful to have a method which returned all possibilities.
is the lookup of superclasses when considering parameters to the method. One
possible solution would be to return a list of matches if multiple are
found, in order of best match to worst as defined by the JLS. Don't know if
this is useful though.
on the other hand, i think that we need to have methods which return a single method in a manner compliant with the JLS rules. most components using these methods will not be in a better position to decide which method to use.
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
