Bah! Realized after I hit send that you were talking about logging.
Others have already pointed out how to do that one using the System call.
So, nevermind.
-Paul
Paul Speed wrote:
I'd just like to point out that the only valid way to tell if two
objects are the same instance if to use ==. Any other approach will not
work.
Comparing the toString() method results as you do is only really
comparing the hashcodes... which are not unique by a long shot (I never
assume people know this). Besides, == is even faster. What cases do
you find that you've had to use .toString().equals(...) where you
couldn't just do an == check?
-Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 Straße 11
80867 München
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/bui
lder/package-summary.html
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/api/org/apache/commons/lang/bui
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]
