[forge-dev] Adding a field of array type

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

It's 2:40 am here, so I'll read and comment more fully tomorrow, but Types
should only be fully qualified if there is an existing import that
conflicts with the FQN of the type that was added to the source file.
Hopefully that makes sense :)

~Lincoln

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Ivan St. Ivanov
<ivan.st.ivanov at gmail.com>wrote:

> Sure :-)
>
> But not today, as I'm a bit sleepy (it's nearly 2am here in Bulgaria). :-)
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM, George Gastaldi <gegastaldi at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Right, that could work.
>> Fancy a pull request ? Test included please ! :)
>>
>> 2012/7/23 Ivan St. Ivanov <ivan.st.ivanov at gmail.com>:
>> > Maybe something like:
>> >
>> > private boolean fieldNeedsFQN(String typeName)
>> >     String simpleName = Types.toSimpleName(typeName);
>> >     // This works both with simple as well as with qualified names
>> >     Import import = getOrigin().getImport(simpleName);
>> >     if (import != null && !import.getQualifiedName().equals(typeName)) {
>> >         return true;
>> >     }
>> >     return false;
>> > }
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM, George Gastaldi <gegastaldi at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Ivan,
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, I have to agree with you, this is something that should be
>> >> improved. I also don't like having FQN in field declarations.
>> >> But, figuring it out how to avoid name clashes may be harder to
>> >> implement than using this strategy.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> George Gastaldi
>> >>
>> >> 2012/7/23 Ivan St. Ivanov <ivan.st.ivanov at gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi George,
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I realized that. So it's up to us to decide which option we
>> take:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) It is safe to have the fully qualified name in the field
>> >> > declarations,
>> >> > but it is kinda ugly
>> >> > 2) Declaring the fields with non fully qualified names looks natural
>> >> > (all of
>> >> > us use this style), but it may produce class name clashes in one out
>> of
>> >> > 1000
>> >> > or more cases. E.g. adding java.util.Date and java.sql.Date to a
>> class.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't mind to keep it in the current way. But when I show the
>> >> > generated
>> >> > classes to the people, they might get the feeling that something does
>> >> > not
>> >> > look like in their IDEs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Ivan
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM, George Gastaldi <
>> gegastaldi at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Ivan,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Using the fully qualified name avoids class name conflicts, so it is
>> >> >> much safer to use than to rely on imports only.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> George Gastaldi
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2012/7/23 Ivan St. Ivanov <ivan.st.ivanov at gmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Lincoln,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm hacking now a solution. Something like:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > if (Types.isArray(simpleName))
>> >> >> > {
>> >> >> >     Name name = ast.newSimpleName(Types.stripArray(simpleName));
>> >> >> >     Type typeOfArray = ast.newSimpleType(name);
>> >> >> >     type = ast.newArrayType(typeNoArray);
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm just trying to find the most suitable place of the above
>> snippet
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > setType method. Maybe I'll do some refactoring of the existing
>> code.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >  I noticed also that the code inside:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >       if (!Strings.areEqual(typeName, simpleName) &&
>> requiresImport)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ...should also be touched to support arrays.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > BTW, we have the same issue with generic types as well. So I'm
>> >> >> > looking
>> >> >> > into
>> >> >> > them too.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cheers,
>> >> >> > Ivan
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > P.S. Don't you think that we should have the simple name (e.g.
>> File)
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > field declaration instead of the whole type:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > right now it is:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > import java.io.File;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > public class Test {
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >    private java.io.File file;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III
>> >> >> > <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hey Ivan!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You're correct, the JDT probably doesn't have a convenient method
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> (it doesn't have much that is convenient,) but what are your
>> >> >> >> proposed
>> >> >> >> changes?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ~Lincoln
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Ivan St. Ivanov
>> >> >> >> <ivan.st.ivanov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Hi folks,
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I wonder is it possible to add a field to a JavaClass and to
>> set an
>> >> >> >>> array
>> >> >> >>> as its type. The setType(String) method does not support arrays
>> yet
>> >> >> >>> and I
>> >> >> >>> don't want to use the other two variants of this method (taking
>> >> >> >>> Class
>> >> >> >>> and
>> >> >> >>> JavaResource parameters).
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I looked at the mentioned method (setType(String)). And found a
>> >> >> >>> suitable
>> >> >> >>> place where I could add the support for arrays. However, I'm
>> afraid
>> >> >> >>> that
>> >> >> >>> JDT's AST class does not have a convenient newArray....()
>> method.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Cheers,
>> >> >> >>> Ivan
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>> forge-dev mailing list
>> >> >> >>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> >> >> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Lincoln Baxter, III
>> >> >> >> http://ocpsoft.org
>> >> >> >> "Simpler is better."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> forge-dev mailing list
>> >> >> >> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> >> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > forge-dev mailing list
>> >> >> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> forge-dev mailing list
>> >> >> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > forge-dev mailing list
>> >> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> forge-dev mailing list
>> >> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > forge-dev mailing list
>> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>


-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120724/b6be90c1/attachment.html