You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@commons.apache.org by Yann Duponchel <yd...@zurich.ibm.com> on 2003/11/26 18:39:57 UTC
[jxpath] conflict with Map and accessors
Hi,
Assume I have a class Tree which looks like that:
public class Test implements Map {
[...]
public Object getFoo();
}
I would expect that xpath such as "foo" would try to evaluate getFoo()
instead of trying get("foo") which might not exist. Because, the problem
is that I can't figure out how to retrieve nodes which are children of
getFoo().
Is this the desired behavior?
Is there a workaround to force the evaluation of getFoo() instead of
get("foo")?
Thanks,
Yann.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [jxpath] conflict with Map and accessors
Posted by Dmitri Plotnikov <dm...@apache.org>.
At some point in the past I tried to add support for these hybrids to
JXPath, but it was causing many problems, so I gave up. And that's where it
stands at this point, unfortunately. If you have a JavaBean that implements
the Map interface, it is treated as a Map and its bean-style properties are
inaccessible via JXPath. The only solution I can propose is to modify the
get(String) method of the bean so it returns values of its bean-style
properties.
- Dmitri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yann Duponchel" <yd...@zurich.ibm.com>
To: <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:39 PM
Subject: [jxpath] conflict with Map and accessors
> Hi,
>
> Assume I have a class Tree which looks like that:
>
> public class Test implements Map {
> [...]
> public Object getFoo();
> }
>
> I would expect that xpath such as "foo" would try to evaluate getFoo()
> instead of trying get("foo") which might not exist. Because, the problem
> is that I can't figure out how to retrieve nodes which are children of
> getFoo().
>
> Is this the desired behavior?
> Is there a workaround to force the evaluation of getFoo() instead of
> get("foo")?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yann.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org