You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@commons.apache.org by "Garsombke, Franz" <Fr...@Level3.com> on 2004/08/13 23:02:44 UTC
[Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans
I know that Betwixt is very good at mapping XML to Beans. Is there a way
to use it for mapping beans to beans? If not, does anyone know of a tool
that allows for an XML mapping of one bean to another bean?
Thanks in advance.
Franz.
Re: Initiating commons projects (was [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans)
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
See intermixed.
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:40:04 +1300, Simon Kitching
<si...@ecnetwork.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 11:19, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 29 Sep 2004, at 04:11, Brian Pugh wrote:
> >
> > > I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and I
> > > find myself needing exactly this kind of a framework for mapping beans
> > > to beans. I am very "enthused by this idea" and would be willing to
> > > actively participate on a project to create such a framework. Robert,
> > > are you implying that this is something you might see being done as an
> > > apache project?
> >
> > dunno.
> >
> > it depends.
> >
> > this kind of thing would definitely fit well within the commons.
> > however, successful commons components do require a critical mass of
> > ASF committer energy. sometimes, it can be easier to build a community
> > elsewhere where the rules are different. i don't really have the spare
> > energy to push this through the sandbox by myself.
> >
> > > Would others be interested in such a project if an attempt was made to
> > > create one?
> >
> > that's the big question :)
>
> This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that it is a good
> idea for commons to encourage the creation of new projects just because
> "it's a cool idea".
>
> Commons has traditionally been a place where creation of code has been
> driven by the specific needs of one or more projects. For example
> Digester grew out of tomcat,
s/tomcat/Struts/
Digester was factored out of Struts (along with BeanUtils). Tomcat
adopted it later, in place of some Tomcat-specific technology for
parsing web.xml and server.xml files -- which, in turn, was my
original motiviation for quite a few ideas in Digester :-).
> BeanUtils grew out of (or at least was
> strongly driven by) struts, lang and collections have been driven by a
> whole number of different projects etc.
>
> Having a real and immediate user of new code ensures that the project is
> grounded in reality; people complain if the design gets too abstract or
> develops other flaws, because they need to *use* it. It also ensures
> that there are people who have a desire to maintain that code in the
> future.
>
> I'm not trying to discourage the idea of coding for fun, or the idea of
> following up an interesting concept to see where it might go and what it
> might be useful for. However I would discourage doing this as an
> apache-commons project; Sourceforge or similar seems a much better venue
> for that sort of thing. An abandoned project on Sourceforge is no big
> deal; an abandoned project in commons doesn't look so good.
>
> The commons sandbox isn't really a good place for general "software
> research", because the barriers to entry for interested people are too
> high. When the people involved are already part of the commons community
> this is less of an issue, but I think even stuff like Craig's "chains"
> module might fare better initially as a sourceforge project.
Actually, the charter of Commons Sandbox was for existing Jakarta
committers to have just such an opportunity -- to play with a new
idea, *or* to factor out some potentially reuable code, and *then* see
if a community could be built around it. This has been successful for
some packages and unsuccessful for others, but the success rate has
actually been higher than I expected -- and *much* higher than the
success rate for something started at SourceForge and then followed by
an attempted incubation within Apache. That barrier is simply too
high for small scale packages like most of the things you see in
Commons.
As such, [chain] was exactly within the charter (whether or not there
were ulterior motives to use it in Struts :-).
> IMHO, the sandbox is much more suited to experimenting with new
> implementations of existing commons concepts, or with holding code that
> is in the process of being moved from some existing non-commons project
> into a standalone library hosted by commons.
>
> In the specific case of a "Beans to Beans" project, I would be in favour
> of hosting it at sourceforge initially. Maybe "commons-dev" could then
> be subscribed to the sourceforge project dev list, so that commons
> developers are kept aware of the project?
If this project is proposed by (or will be participated in by)
existing Jakarta committers, it makes perfect sense to do it in the
sandbox. To me, whether or not it's a refactoring sort of issue is
not the relevant decision factor.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Initiating commons projects (was [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans)
Posted by Brian Pugh <tr...@yahoo.com>.
As I mentioned in my original post, I could really use something like this very soon so I've been playing with some ideas over the past week. I think it is something that would be reasonably useful for others, but it sounds like apache isn't the right place (at least to start out), so I opened a project here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jbeanmapper/
I haven't yet put anything up, but I'll try to in the next day or two. If anyone is interested, please send comments/suggestions to the discussion forum for jbeanmapper over on sourceforge.
-Brian
Simon Kitching <si...@ecnetwork.co.nz> wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 11:19, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2004, at 04:11, Brian Pugh wrote:
>
> > I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and I
> > find myself needing exactly this kind of a framework for mapping beans
> > to beans. I am very "enthused by this idea" and would be willing to
> > actively participate on a project to create such a framework. Robert,
> > are you implying that this is something you might see being done as an
> > apache project?
>
> dunno.
>
> it depends.
>
> this kind of thing would definitely fit well within the commons.
> however, successful commons components do require a critical mass of
> ASF committer energy. sometimes, it can be easier to build a community
> elsewhere where the rules are different. i don't really have the spare
> energy to push this through the sandbox by myself.
>
> > Would others be interested in such a project if an attempt was made to
> > create one?
>
> that's the big question :)
This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that it is a good
idea for commons to encourage the creation of new projects just because
"it's a cool idea".
Commons has traditionally been a place where creation of code has been
driven by the specific needs of one or more projects. For example
Digester grew out of tomcat, BeanUtils grew out of (or at least was
strongly driven by) struts, lang and collections have been driven by a
whole number of different projects etc.
Having a real and immediate user of new code ensures that the project is
grounded in reality; people complain if the design gets too abstract or
develops other flaws, because they need to *use* it. It also ensures
that there are people who have a desire to maintain that code in the
future.
I'm not trying to discourage the idea of coding for fun, or the idea of
following up an interesting concept to see where it might go and what it
might be useful for. However I would discourage doing this as an
apache-commons project; Sourceforge or similar seems a much better venue
for that sort of thing. An abandoned project on Sourceforge is no big
deal; an abandoned project in commons doesn't look so good.
The commons sandbox isn't really a good place for general "software
research", because the barriers to entry for interested people are too
high. When the people involved are already part of the commons community
this is less of an issue, but I think even stuff like Craig's "chains"
module might fare better initially as a sourceforge project.
IMHO, the sandbox is much more suited to experimenting with new
implementations of existing commons concepts, or with holding code that
is in the process of being moved from some existing non-commons project
into a standalone library hosted by commons.
In the specific case of a "Beans to Beans" project, I would be in favour
of hosting it at sourceforge initially. Maybe "commons-dev" could then
be subscribed to the sourceforge project dev list, so that commons
developers are kept aware of the project?
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Initiating commons projects (was [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans)
Posted by Simon Kitching <si...@ecnetwork.co.nz>.
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 11:19, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2004, at 04:11, Brian Pugh wrote:
>
> > I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and I
> > find myself needing exactly this kind of a framework for mapping beans
> > to beans. I am very "enthused by this idea" and would be willing to
> > actively participate on a project to create such a framework. Robert,
> > are you implying that this is something you might see being done as an
> > apache project?
>
> dunno.
>
> it depends.
>
> this kind of thing would definitely fit well within the commons.
> however, successful commons components do require a critical mass of
> ASF committer energy. sometimes, it can be easier to build a community
> elsewhere where the rules are different. i don't really have the spare
> energy to push this through the sandbox by myself.
>
> > Would others be interested in such a project if an attempt was made to
> > create one?
>
> that's the big question :)
This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that it is a good
idea for commons to encourage the creation of new projects just because
"it's a cool idea".
Commons has traditionally been a place where creation of code has been
driven by the specific needs of one or more projects. For example
Digester grew out of tomcat, BeanUtils grew out of (or at least was
strongly driven by) struts, lang and collections have been driven by a
whole number of different projects etc.
Having a real and immediate user of new code ensures that the project is
grounded in reality; people complain if the design gets too abstract or
develops other flaws, because they need to *use* it. It also ensures
that there are people who have a desire to maintain that code in the
future.
I'm not trying to discourage the idea of coding for fun, or the idea of
following up an interesting concept to see where it might go and what it
might be useful for. However I would discourage doing this as an
apache-commons project; Sourceforge or similar seems a much better venue
for that sort of thing. An abandoned project on Sourceforge is no big
deal; an abandoned project in commons doesn't look so good.
The commons sandbox isn't really a good place for general "software
research", because the barriers to entry for interested people are too
high. When the people involved are already part of the commons community
this is less of an issue, but I think even stuff like Craig's "chains"
module might fare better initially as a sourceforge project.
IMHO, the sandbox is much more suited to experimenting with new
implementations of existing commons concepts, or with holding code that
is in the process of being moved from some existing non-commons project
into a standalone library hosted by commons.
In the specific case of a "Beans to Beans" project, I would be in favour
of hosting it at sourceforge initially. Maybe "commons-dev" could then
be subscribed to the sourceforge project dev list, so that commons
developers are kept aware of the project?
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans
Posted by Hans Gilde <hg...@earthlink.net>.
It's pretty easy to do this with JEXL. It follows that it's pretty easy to
do it with Jelly. In fact, it's possible to do something like this with the
basic Jelly syntax, although it's not very intuitive. However, some basic
tags to make this happen would definitely be possible, that would give the
XML mapping thing.
This could also be a good add on to BeanUtils, but without the xml mapping.
You could map an input class to an output class, with strings for "from" and
"to" properties.
I'll help but I can't commit to anything big either.
-----Original Message-----
From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 5:19 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans
On 29 Sep 2004, at 04:11, Brian Pugh wrote:
> I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and I
> find myself needing exactly this kind of a framework for mapping beans
> to beans. I am very "enthused by this idea" and would be willing to
> actively participate on a project to create such a framework. Robert,
> are you implying that this is something you might see being done as an
> apache project?
dunno.
it depends.
this kind of thing would definitely fit well within the commons.
however, successful commons components do require a critical mass of
ASF committer energy. sometimes, it can be easier to build a community
elsewhere where the rules are different. i don't really have the spare
energy to push this through the sandbox by myself.
> Would others be interested in such a project if an attempt was made to
> create one?
that's the big question :)
anyone else interested in this one?
(maybe we need to raise this at the general level.)
- robert
> -Brian
>
> robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> (apologies for being very late to this party, i've not been too well
> recently)
>
> not that i know of but it sounds like the kind of crazy tool that
> really needs to exist!
>
> i'm sure that this kind of thing has lots of potential uses out there.
>
> mix in a few functors and you'd have a really cool transformation
> engine.
>
> there are times when folks are more than a little frustrated by
> beanutil's lack of expressiveness when it comes to mapping presentation
> to domain objects. reflection is slow but isn't usually the bottleneck
> in typical applications. if it is, then there are plenty of cool ways
> to fix it now (generate either source or bytecodes).
>
> anyone else out there enthused by this idea?
>
> - robert
>
> On 13 Aug 2004, at 22:02, Garsombke, Franz wrote:
>
>> I know that Betwixt is very good at mapping XML to Beans. Is there a
>> way
>> to use it for mapping beans to beans? If not, does anyone know of a
>> tool
>> that allows for an XML mapping of one bean to another bean?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Franz.
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On 29 Sep 2004, at 04:11, Brian Pugh wrote:
> I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and I
> find myself needing exactly this kind of a framework for mapping beans
> to beans. I am very "enthused by this idea" and would be willing to
> actively participate on a project to create such a framework. Robert,
> are you implying that this is something you might see being done as an
> apache project?
dunno.
it depends.
this kind of thing would definitely fit well within the commons.
however, successful commons components do require a critical mass of
ASF committer energy. sometimes, it can be easier to build a community
elsewhere where the rules are different. i don't really have the spare
energy to push this through the sandbox by myself.
> Would others be interested in such a project if an attempt was made to
> create one?
that's the big question :)
anyone else interested in this one?
(maybe we need to raise this at the general level.)
- robert
> -Brian
>
> robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> (apologies for being very late to this party, i've not been too well
> recently)
>
> not that i know of but it sounds like the kind of crazy tool that
> really needs to exist!
>
> i'm sure that this kind of thing has lots of potential uses out there.
>
> mix in a few functors and you'd have a really cool transformation
> engine.
>
> there are times when folks are more than a little frustrated by
> beanutil's lack of expressiveness when it comes to mapping presentation
> to domain objects. reflection is slow but isn't usually the bottleneck
> in typical applications. if it is, then there are plenty of cool ways
> to fix it now (generate either source or bytecodes).
>
> anyone else out there enthused by this idea?
>
> - robert
>
> On 13 Aug 2004, at 22:02, Garsombke, Franz wrote:
>
>> I know that Betwixt is very good at mapping XML to Beans. Is there a
>> way
>> to use it for mapping beans to beans? If not, does anyone know of a
>> tool
>> that allows for an XML mapping of one bean to another bean?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Franz.
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans
Posted by Brian Pugh <tr...@yahoo.com>.
I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and I find myself needing exactly this kind of a framework for mapping beans to beans. I am very "enthused by this idea" and would be willing to actively participate on a project to create such a framework. Robert, are you implying that this is something you might see being done as an apache project? Would others be interested in such a project if an attempt was made to create one?
-Brian
robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
(apologies for being very late to this party, i've not been too well
recently)
not that i know of but it sounds like the kind of crazy tool that
really needs to exist!
i'm sure that this kind of thing has lots of potential uses out there.
mix in a few functors and you'd have a really cool transformation
engine.
there are times when folks are more than a little frustrated by
beanutil's lack of expressiveness when it comes to mapping presentation
to domain objects. reflection is slow but isn't usually the bottleneck
in typical applications. if it is, then there are plenty of cool ways
to fix it now (generate either source or bytecodes).
anyone else out there enthused by this idea?
- robert
On 13 Aug 2004, at 22:02, Garsombke, Franz wrote:
> I know that Betwixt is very good at mapping XML to Beans. Is there a
> way
> to use it for mapping beans to beans? If not, does anyone know of a
> tool
> that allows for an XML mapping of one bean to another bean?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Franz.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Re: [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
(apologies for being very late to this party, i've not been too well
recently)
not that i know of but it sounds like the kind of crazy tool that
really needs to exist!
i'm sure that this kind of thing has lots of potential uses out there.
mix in a few functors and you'd have a really cool transformation
engine.
there are times when folks are more than a little frustrated by
beanutil's lack of expressiveness when it comes to mapping presentation
to domain objects. reflection is slow but isn't usually the bottleneck
in typical applications. if it is, then there are plenty of cool ways
to fix it now (generate either source or bytecodes).
anyone else out there enthused by this idea?
- robert
On 13 Aug 2004, at 22:02, Garsombke, Franz wrote:
> I know that Betwixt is very good at mapping XML to Beans. Is there a
> way
> to use it for mapping beans to beans? If not, does anyone know of a
> tool
> that allows for an XML mapping of one bean to another bean?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Franz.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org