<snip> > With the static method I can apply my toString implementation to any object that > comes along - just what you need for debugging. I just wonder why the Apache > commons-beanutils does not provide such a method, and someone mentioned it might be > in commons-lang, but I could not find that either.
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/apidocs/org/apache/commons/lang/builder/ToStringBuilder.html#reflectionToString(java.lang.Object) String objString = ToStringBuilder.reflectionToString(object); - Mike > > Hiran > > ----------------------------------------- > Hiran Chaudhuri > SAG Systemhaus GmbH > Elsenheimer Straße 11 > 80867 München > Phone +49-89-54 74 21 34 > Fax +49-89-54 74 21 99 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Donnerstag, 7. Oktober 2004 14:22 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Proposed Action base class change > > > > Another fair point. :) > > > > Well, that's the reason I put the idea out there... I can't > > think of every possible angle to look at it from... If I > > thought I could, I wouldn't need to solicit opinions in the > > first place. > > > > Kind of depressing though... I'm trying to contribute, but so > > far all my ideas have been shot down (but for good reasons, > > so I'm not bitter about it). Just have to keep trying I suppose. :) > > > > -- > > Frank W. Zammetti > > Founder and Chief Software Architect > > Omnytex Technologies > > http://www.omnytex.com > > > > On Thu, October 7, 2004 8:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > Hi, Frank. > > > > > > I do not agree. While in most cases it is desireable to see > > inside a > > > bean (hence I created my > > > public static String toString(Object bean) method), > > there are times > > > when I just have to make sure a bean is not just equal but the same > > > instance. > > > The java.lang.Object.toString() methods allows me to that quite > > > quickly as the memory address is printed. > > > > > > Unless you have another way to provide that information, I'd rather > > > stick with the default toString() plus some utility > > toString(Object) > > > method. The impact for you is not too much. What you code so far is: > > > log.debug("mybean="+mybean); > > > and you'd have to change that to > > > log.debug("mybean="+BeanUtil.toString(mybean)); > > > which will allow you to either see the memory address or > > the contents, > > > whatever you prefer. > > > > > > Hiran > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > Hiran Chaudhuri > > > SAG Systemhaus GmbH > > > Elsenheimer Stra?e 11 > > > 80867 M?nchen > > > Phone +49-89-54 74 21 34 > > > Fax +49-89-54 74 21 99 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Donnerstag, 7. Oktober 2004 13:43 > > >> To: Struts Developers List > > >> Subject: Re: Proposed Action base class change > > >> > > >> Hi Niall, > > >> > > >> I certainly agree it would not be possible to satisfy > > everyone, but > > >> seeing as the intrinsic toString() is all but useless (and > > people do > > >> generally expect that to be the case with many classes), > > why not give > > >> an implementation that is of at least some use to some people? > > >> Surely it would be better than what you get now? Obviously it's > > >> something many people will override, and that's of course > > the whole > > >> point of inheritance. But providing even a slightly more useful > > >> default implementation (and maybe telling people it's a > > basic default > > >> implementation so as to try and keep the flood of bugzilla > > requests > > >> to a > > >> minimum) seems to me like a good idea. > > >> > > >> I can't address your point about dynabeans because I haven't used > > >> them enough to be able to intelligently comment (which is to say I > > >> haven't used them at all! :) )... I wouodn't imagine some basic > > >> implementation would be too tough for them as well. > > >> > > >> In any case, I will look at the toString builders you mentioned... > > >> I've come to really like using the commons packages and I try to > > >> whenever I can. This would be a good case I think, if it > > doesn't get > > >> added as I proposed. I already have an ActionHelpers class with a > > >> bunch of similarly-themed static methods for use from Actions, so > > >> maybe it's time to do so for forms as well. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Frank W. Zammetti > > >> Founder and Chief Software Architect > > >> Omnytex Technologies > > >> http://www.omnytex.com > > >> > > >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > > >> > Frank, > > >> > > > >> > For me it wouldn't be any use unless it also handled > > >> DynaBeans. Even > > >> > then I'd end up overriding it because I have some > > formatting utils > > >> > which do dates, arrays and collections. Seems to me if > > we put it in > > >> > then we would end up with a monster trying to satisy > > >> everyones needs > > >> > and forever dealing with bugzilla requests for > > enhacements (someone > > >> > would want an i18n version!) - all just for debugging. > > >> > > > >> > The easiest thing is to just put all that code into a > > >> utility method - > > >> > that way its only a one liner in the toString() - even > > >> better if you > > >> > have your own "base" ActionForm that all you others derive > > >> from, then > > >> > its only in one place. > > >> > > > >> > Also, there are a set of "toString" builders in commons > > >> lang which you > > >> > might like to use - including a reflection one like yours: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/api/org/apache/commons/lang/bu > > >> i > > >> > lder/package-summary.html > > >> > > > >> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/api/org/apache/commons/lang/bu > > >> i > > >> > lder/ReflectionToStringBuilder.html > > >> > > > >> > Niall > > >> > > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > > >> > From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > To: "Struts Developer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:29 AM > > >> > Subject: Re: Proposed Action base class change > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >>Obviously I made a typo in the subject... this applies to the > > >> >>ActionForm base class. > > >> >> > > >> >>Did anyone have any comment on this? I've noticed a lack > > >> of activity > > >> >>on the list lately... > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >>>Hello all... > > >> >>> > > >> >>>I find myself all the time overloading toString() of my > > >> ActionForms > > >> >>>for > > >> > > > >> > debugging > > >> > > > >> >>>purposes, so I can easily dump the current state of the > > object. I > > >> >>>had > > >> > > > >> > been doing > > >> > > > >> >>>this for each ActionForm class, specifically for it, but > > >> it ocurrs to > > >> >>>me > > >> > > > >> > that a > > >> > > > >> >>>general-purpose reflection-based approach would be better. > > >> >>> > > >> >>>I'd like to propose adding this functionality to the > > >> ActionForm base > > >> > > > >> > class. Here's > > >> > > > >> >>>the code I propose adding: > > >> >>> > > >> >>>import java.lang.reflect.Field; > > >> >>>public static final AVERAGE_FIELD_SIZE = 25; public String > > >> toString() > > >> >>>{ > > >> >>> String str = ""; > > >> >>> StringBuffer sb = null; > > >> >>> try { > > >> >>> Field[] fields = this.getClass().getDeclaredFields(); > > >> >>> sb = new StringBuffer(fields.length * AVERAGE_FIELD_SIZE); > > >> >>> for (int i = 0; i < fields.length; i++) { > > >> >>> if (sb.length() > 0) { sb.append(", "); } > > >> >>> sb.append(fields[i].getName() + "=" + > > fields[i].get(this)); > > >> >>> } > > >> >>> str = sb.toString().trim(); > > >> >>> } catch (Exception e) { > > >> >>> str = "Exception in ActionForm.toString() : " + e; > > >> >>> } > > >> >>> return str; > > >> >>>} > > >> >>> > > >> >>>The value of AVERAGE_FIELD_SIZE is a matter of debate, > > and it's of > > >> > > > >> > course impossible > > >> > > > >> >>>to come up with a real value, so something reasonable is > > >> the answer. > > >> >>>25 > > >> > > > >> > struck me > > >> > > > >> >>>as a decent starting point. > > >> >>> > > >> >>>What does everyone think? I find this functionality to be very > > >> >>>useful > > >> > > > >> > in my work, > > >> > > > >> >>>and I suspect others may as well. The code doesn't add any > > >> >>>dependencies > > >> > > > >> > outside > > >> > > > >> >>>J2SE, and it's certainly simple enough as to not be > > >> particularly risky. > > >> >>> > > >> >>>Thanks all! > > >> >>> > > >> >>>Frank W. Zammetti > > >> >>>Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies > > >> >>>http://www.omnytex.com > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >>------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> --------- > > >> >>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] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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]
