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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev