DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32653>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32653 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-13 15:01 ------- [snip] > if(bean instanceof SomeInterface) { > // treat as JavaBean and use introspection to > // acquire the property getter and setter methods > } else if(bean instanceof DynaBean) { > // use DynaBean get/set methods > } else if (bean instanceof Map) { > // use Map get/put methods > } else { > // treat as JavaBean and use introspection to > // acquire the property getter and setter methods > } That would indeed be a non-backwards-incompatible change, assuming SomeInterface was a new thing inside BeanUtils ... but it will still look really odd to have the introspection logic at two different places in the chain. I think you'd still be better off implementing a Map that behaved the way you needed it to, so you don't depend on something new like this. [snip] > I am looking forward to when the ActionForm is freed from its > present bondage, which I understand you support as well. Sort of ... my answer to ActionForm in Shale was to eliminate the need for form beans entirely, since you don't need them with JSF :-). -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
