[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [cp-patches] RFC: preview of XMLEncoder
From: |
Mark Wielaard |
Subject: |
Re: [cp-patches] RFC: preview of XMLEncoder |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:47:44 +0100 |
Hi Robert,
[sorry for the double message, I still cannot sent mail from my primary
address to the list]
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:56 +0100, Robert Schuster wrote:
> as requested on IRC I put the patch that implements parts of the XMLEncoder on
> the list. This code compiles, handles the easier XML serialization situations
> but breaks on the more complicated ones (arrays, GUI components).
Cool! Very good to post this since now people know what the status is of
your work.
> Furthermore I am not really content with some parts of the encoder's
> architecture.
> Please tell me if you want this in anyway.
There are some clear parts that should go in:
> * java/beans/Statement.java: Doc fixes.
> (doExecute): Workaround for Class.forName call.
> (toString): Made output look more like on the JDK.
> * java/beans/Expression.java: Doc fixes.
> (toString): Made output look more like on the JDK.
These look like clear bug fixes, documentation updates. Please commit!
> * java/beans/PersistenceDelegate.java,
> java/beans/DefaultPersistenceDelegate.java,
> java/beans/Encoder.java,
> java/beans/XMLEncoder.java: New file.
> * gnu/java/beans/encoder/Action.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ActionIssuer.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ArrayInstantiationScannerState.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ArraySetScannerState.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ArrayPersistenceDelegate.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ClassPersistenceDelegate.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/GenericScannerState.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/IgnoringScannerState.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/PrimitivePersistenceDelegate.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ReportingScannerState.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ScanEngine.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/ScannerState.java,
> gnu/java/beans/encoder/StAXActionIssuer.java: New file.
These are very sparse on documentation. Making it hard to follow. If you
could document the design a bit, plus some some notes on how you think
the architecture could be improved then it might be a good addition if
someone wants to work on improving it.
Dare I ask about test cases?
Cheers,
Mark