You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de> on 2007/08/02 21:40:49 UTC
[lang] Extension to ClassUtils
Hi,
for some tasks related to reflection and method invocation I need the
counter part of the ClassUtils.primitiveToWrapper() method:
/**
* Returns the corresponding primitive type if cls is a wrapper
* class and null otherwise.
*/
Class wrapperToPrimitive(Class cls)
If this is considered a useful extension to ClassUtils, I can provide a
patch and unit tests.
My use case is that I need to invoke a method, and I only have the name
and an array of parameter values (not the exact parameter types). So I
have to check based on the types of the current parameters if a method
signature is compatible. If the signature contains primitive types, the
current parameter values will be wrapper types; these have to be unboxed.
Does this make sense?
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] Extension to ClassUtils
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Seems good to me. Unit test should confirm symmetry between the two methods too.
>
> Of interest:
>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;jsessionid=291000e179b5162d5ae0d03c598e0:WuuT?bug_id=6176992
>
> Hen
There is a new enhancement request for this feature, including a patch [1].
Thanks for the link. It's good to know that there are people out there
with similar problems :-)
Oliver
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-351
>
> On 8/2/07, Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> for some tasks related to reflection and method invocation I need the
>> counter part of the ClassUtils.primitiveToWrapper() method:
>>
>> /**
>> * Returns the corresponding primitive type if cls is a wrapper
>> * class and null otherwise.
>> */
>> Class wrapperToPrimitive(Class cls)
>>
>> If this is considered a useful extension to ClassUtils, I can provide a
>> patch and unit tests.
>>
>> My use case is that I need to invoke a method, and I only have the name
>> and an array of parameter values (not the exact parameter types). So I
>> have to check based on the types of the current parameters if a method
>> signature is compatible. If the signature contains primitive types, the
>> current parameter values will be wrapper types; these have to be unboxed.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] Extension to ClassUtils
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
Seems good to me. Unit test should confirm symmetry between the two methods too.
Of interest:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;jsessionid=291000e179b5162d5ae0d03c598e0:WuuT?bug_id=6176992
Hen
On 8/2/07, Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for some tasks related to reflection and method invocation I need the
> counter part of the ClassUtils.primitiveToWrapper() method:
>
> /**
> * Returns the corresponding primitive type if cls is a wrapper
> * class and null otherwise.
> */
> Class wrapperToPrimitive(Class cls)
>
> If this is considered a useful extension to ClassUtils, I can provide a
> patch and unit tests.
>
> My use case is that I need to invoke a method, and I only have the name
> and an array of parameter values (not the exact parameter types). So I
> have to check based on the types of the current parameters if a method
> signature is compatible. If the signature contains primitive types, the
> current parameter values will be wrapper types; these have to be unboxed.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Oliver
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org