| Matthew T. Adams 2005-06-06, 7:48 am |
| If we get rid of the targetClassName in the toString() return value,
does that make it easier to provide overloaded String-arg constructors
on the SingleFieldIdentity subclasses (except StringIdentity of course,
which already has a String-arg constructor)? For example,
// in class ByteIdentity
public ByteIdentity(String s) {
this(Byte.parseByte(s));
}
....
This might be convenient, letting Xxx.parseXxx(String) throw whatever it
may.
Thoughts?
--matthew
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew T. Adams [mailto:matthew.adams@xcalia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:17 PM
>To: jdo-experts-ext@sun.com; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SingleFieldIdentity.toString()
>
>
>I agree as well. I thought it was there for some reason that I didn't
>remember or couldn't figure out.
>
>--matthew
>
>"Wes Biggs" <wes@tralfamadore.com> wrote in message
>news:<mailman.4645.1112226133.10966.jdo-general@jdo-experts.org>...
>name
>harder,
>
>
>
|