The important part for me is the munging that stops primitives being special and [] not working. I'm happy to replace the forName part with a better way and rename to getClass.
Would Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().loadClass(String) be acceptable instead of the forName call? Hen On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:43:58 -0000, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While I support the addition of a get class method in principle, I am > concerned that this brushes over the class loader issue. I would say that > Class.forName() will often cause problems, so maybe this isn't the best way > to code this. > > Stephen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I committed this btw. > > > > Hen > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:34:39 -0500, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> I'd like to add ClassUtils.forName; to all intents and purposes the > >> same as Class.forName except that: > >> > >> 1) It understands arrays ending with [] instead of the [L<class>; > >> ugliness. > >> 2) It can handle primitives, "int" would correctly return int.class. > >> 3) (perhaps?) null-safe. No idea really, just throwing it in :) > >> > >> Hen > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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]
