On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:43:41 +0100 > From: robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [beanutils] extending BasicDynaBean with toString, equals, > and hashCode > > maybe it's time to think about adding an optional package > (org.apache.commons.beantuils.optional?) and a build for a > beanutils-optional.jar inspired by the way that ant manages non-core > dependencies. this would allow new implementations with dependencies to be > added to the component without adding to the core-dependencies of > beanutils. > I would be +1 on doing this (at least until we were ready for a BeanUtils 2.x version where I'd be OK with adding dependencies) in ordser to accomodate an extended version of BasicDynaBean. I continue to be -1 on adding an external dependency in BeanUtils 1.x, for pretty much ANY reason (two years of use by lots of different folks makes it pretty clear that the "as is" package is pretty darn useful :-) Quite frankly, the value add -- to BeanUtils users, not from the Lang perspective -- just isn't all that high. It exists, but not enough to disrupt the lives of the very large number of projects that currently depend on BeanUtils (see the Gump dependency chart for a small subset of the people that would be impacted by such a change). > - robert Craig > > On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 11:33 PM, Steven Caswell wrote: > > > My use of the lang.builder is in fact the non-reflection part. I simply > > look > > at the dynabean's dynaclass, ask it for the array of dyna properties, then > > step through the array and call gets on the dynabean for each property, > > passing the result to the appropriate builder. > > > > I understand any hesitancy to add an external dependency without good > > reason. Of course IMHO, adding a dependency to lang would be appropriate > > here because of the benefits of having this basic functionality > > encapsulated > > in the lang.builder package. While the implementation of toString and > > equals > > could be redone without lang.builder, it would be more work (which would > > be > > more error-proned) to do a hashCode implementation in a similar manner. I > > think it would be a shame to waste the great effort of the lang folks who > > put together the lang.builder package. > > > > I use many of the pieces on a daily basis, esp. the lang.builder stuff. > > IMHO > > it is pretty solid, so I think the risk to beanutils of a dependency on > > lang > > would be minimal. > > > > > > Steven Caswell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving > > "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:08 AM > >> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > >> Subject: Re: [beanutils] extending BasicDynaBean with > >> toString, equals, and hashCode > >> > >> > >> The concept of ToStringBuilder and EqualsBuilder ist good, > >> but not completely suited for BeanUtils - the reflection > >> pattern used does not consider the accessor methods for beans. > >> > >> If your extended dynabean does the explicit use of the > >> lang.builder code w/o the reflection parts, it should suite > >> the bean use pattern. A dependency of beanutils on lang will > >> need acceptance voting from the committers (to me seems to be > >> OK, since lang is even lower level than beans). > >> > >> It might be sensible to factor out parts from the > >> lang.builder implementations to be then subclassed once for > >> beans and once for full filed reflection usage? > >> > >> Just my 2c! > >> > >> Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Steven Caswell wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:32:26 -0400 > >>>> From: Steven Caswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Subject: [beanutils] extending BasicDynaBean with toString, equals, > >>>> and hashCode > >>>> > >>>> I've written an extended dynabean class that extends > >> (actually, wraps) > >>>> BasicDynaBean to add toString and equals. The toString method uses > >>>> commons.lang.ToStringBuilder to build the toString, and > >>>> commons.lang.EqualsBuilder to perform the equals > >> comparison. I know it > >>>> needs hashCode, I just haven't taken the time to add it yet. > >>>> > >>>> Is there any interest in having this class donated to > >>>> commons-beanutils? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Conceptually, I like the idea. My only concern is that it would > >>> introduce a dependency on commons-lang that does not > >> currently exist > >>> in beanutils. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Steven Caswell > >>> > >>> > >>> Craig > >>> > >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> :) Christoph Reck > >> > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
