[forge-dev] Adding a field of array type
Ivan St. Ivanov
ivan.st.ivanov at gmail.com
Tue Jul 24 17:43:49 EDT 2012
Hi guys!
Sorry, maybe I mislead you a bit yesterday. The setType(String) was working
[nearly] as expected: it imports the type and then creates the field with
its simple name. Sorry again!
Now I'm working on making setType(String) support arrays and generics. I
did it for the array, but now I'm hacking the JDT API for adding a
parameterized type.
Cheers,
Ivan
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III <
lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Otherwise, just use the Simple type.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III <
> lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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."
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120725/7cd49cd8/attachment.html
More information about the forge-dev
mailing list