i think that commons-dev list is the best place to discuss this kind of thing. i'd recommend that you subscribe (so longer as you set up filters first since the volume's reasonably high) but if you don't, you can probably follow this thread by using the archives. you can post to list even if you're not subscribed, but the post will be moderated (and so may take a little time to make it through.
- robert
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 11:13 PM, Gavin McPhee wrote:
Hello Robert,
Thanks for the effort that you went to with this.
Having read the reply from Craig I agree with his evaluation of the problem
however I'd rather not use the reflection API myself for exactly the same
reasons that he has indicated.
What I'm after is a mechanism to access bean properties that are methods and
not just object instances (as is the current BasicDynaBean implementation)
.
As an example, I may wish to have a method such as public Long getUpTime(
)
(which has to calculate its result) and access this method from the
PropertyUtils class.
I believe that this could be done by creating a DynaBean implementation or
modifying the BasicDynaBean implementation to allow for the registration of
a user defined getter and setter methods for individual properties. This
mechanism would not break current implementations as Craig has outlined.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Regards, Gavin McPhee.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2003 5:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 17036] - PropertyUtils doesn't recognise "normal" properties on a DynaBean decendent object.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17036>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17036
PropertyUtils doesn't recognise "normal" properties on a DynaBean decendent
object.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-26
18:24 -------
the consensus is that the current behaviour is correct. if you want to call
the
real property on a DynaBean, the right way to do this is to add them
explicitly.
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:56 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:12:56 +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] bug#17036 PropertyUtils doesn't recognise "normal" properties on a DynaBean
PropertyUtils doesn't recognise "normal" properties on a DynaBean (see http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17036).
can anyone think of any good reasons why i shouldn't change beanutils so that normal properties are available if none of the dynabean properties match?
Personally, I think that doing this would be *really* confusing. Just for one example, consider how one determines the names of all the properties supported by a DynaBean instance:
DynaProperty properties[] = dynaBean.getDynaClass().getDynaProperties() ;
In today's implementation, the set of properties you get back represents 100% of the set of things that can be manipulated via get() and set() calls -- and you will get IAE if you try them with any other name. If you make the proposed change, that's no longer the case -- but it is hard to argue that we should synthesize DynaProperty instances for the "real" bean properties as well, because they are *not* dynamic properties.
A second confusion relates to whether or not sets through the standard bean setter can be read by the dynamic getter, and vice versa:
dynaBean.set("foo", "bar"); dynaBean.setFoo("baz"); String whatDoYouGet = (String) dynaBean.get("foo"); // What do you get?
Logically, you would want to require that this return "baz" -- but that means we would break every existing DynaBean implementation class that already exists. If you don't require this, then it's going to lead to all sorts of bugs when users assume that it works that way.
I don't like it. If you want to manipulate the standard JavaBeans properties of a DynaBean implementation, you should just call them directly :-) or else use reflection yourself.
Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
