On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:45:16 +0000 From: robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [beanutils] beans for static utility classes
beanutils has a fair number of utility classes which are composed of static methods. i'd like to create proper beans containing the implementation code and have the static methods call an instance.
<snip>
comments?
anyone objections to me implementing these changes?
+1.
We should, however, create a factory method (perhaps based on commons-discovery technology) to create an appropriate implementation of the proper beans for you. That way, we could support pluggable replacements for the standard implementation classes quite easily.
(i think that) i agree - but i'd say that pluggability needs thinking about so that we get it right. we should also think about any new dependencies.
Finally, the factory should be configurable to (or default to) creating an instance per class loader. That way, for example, the cache of introspected beans that PropertyUtils maintains for one webapp won't conflict with the cache for a different webapp, even if commons-beanutils is loaded from a parent class loader.
i broadly agree. the word 'configuration' does concern me since beanutils is used to process configuration files (eg. in digester). i'd like to make sure that we think it through and get it right.
i think that the first stage is for me to go ahead now and create a basic implementation which broadly replicates the current functionality (ie the static methods call singletons).
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
