[beanutils] new code submission

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

I'd like to submit/commit some code to beanutils:


BeanTester, a JUnit extension which uses BeanUtils to test a JavaBean.
Usage is something like:

BeanTester bt = new BeanTester(MyBean.class);
bt.addTest( "name", new Object[] { "Fred", "Jim", null, "" } );
bt.testProperties();

or     new BeanTester(MyBean.class).inferTests().testProperties();


SimpleBeanProxy. This may be in BeanUtils but I don't see it. Also it
infers JDK 1.3 dependency upon BeanUtils. Given a Bean interface, it
provides a basic implementation sitting on top of a HashMap. It would
additionally support DynaBean.

RandomBeanMaker. This creates Random beans. It would need a supporting
Random library with a similar structure to the Convert one. It uses
reflection to create beans from class structures and proxying to create
beans when an interface type exists.

BeanToString. This is one I'd assume BeanUtils has, but I don't see it. It
would create a toString under a certain scheme to show a bean's values.

That's the list for the moment :)

Hen


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [beanutils] new code submission

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>]

sounds interesting but i think that adding dependencies is something that 
probably needs thinking about. adding these dependencies to the core would 
probably be pretty unpopular with some of the projects that use beanutils.

this issue is a little wider than just beanutils. there are a couple of 
regex matcher implementations that i'd like to introduce into digester but 
i don't want to introduce a core dependency into digester for the 
libraries that would be used.

i was wondering whether we could go down the ant route and split into core 
and optional. the stuff will extra dependencies could go under a separate 
package which would depend on the core stuff but on which the core stuff 
could not depend. so for beanutils, this would mean creating a org.apache.
commons.beanutils.optional package which would be build separately from 
the core stuff.

what do people think about this idea?

- robert

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 03:18 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

>
> I'd like to submit/commit some code to beanutils:
>
>
> BeanTester, a JUnit extension which uses BeanUtils to test a JavaBean.
> Usage is something like:
>
> BeanTester bt = new BeanTester(MyBean.class);
> bt.addTest( "name", new Object[] { "Fred", "Jim", null, "" } );
> bt.testProperties();
>
> or     new BeanTester(MyBean.class).inferTests().testProperties();
>
>
> SimpleBeanProxy. This may be in BeanUtils but I don't see it. Also it
> infers JDK 1.3 dependency upon BeanUtils. Given a Bean interface, it
> provides a basic implementation sitting on top of a HashMap. It would
> additionally support DynaBean.
>
> RandomBeanMaker. This creates Random beans. It would need a supporting
> Random library with a similar structure to the Convert one. It uses
> reflection to create beans from class structures and proxying to create
> beans when an interface type exists.
>
> BeanToString. This is one I'd assume BeanUtils has, but I don't see it. It
> would create a toString under a certain scheme to show a bean's values.
>
> That's the list for the moment :)
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org