On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:18 AM, .Bill Smith wrote:
> The map alone is not sufficient to describe the object; you need the
> class too. That's true both for the bean and any of it's bean-typed
> properties, since a property might be typed with an interface or an
> abstract class for which there
Thanks. I will definitely be using this function... keep me up to
date on any changes.
Bill wrote:
> > It occurs to me that the "unbean" function could be very useful when
> > writing tests for code that calls Java objects.
>
> Yes, that is exactly the use I have in mind.
--~--~-~--~
> It occurs to me that the "unbean" function could be very useful when
> writing tests for code that calls Java objects.
Yes, that is exactly the use I have in mind.
Bill
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
It occurs to me that the "unbean" function could be very useful when
writing tests for code that calls Java objects. Anyone have thoughts
on its use in this way?
On Feb 24, 9:18 pm, ".Bill Smith" wrote:
> > I tend to associate "bean" with Java beans, so the naming seems to be
> > reversed IMHO:
> I tend to associate "bean" with Java beans, so the naming seems to be
> reversed IMHO: "bean" should convert a Clojure map to a Java bean, and
> "unbean" should do the reverse.
Agreed the name is awkward.
> It's getting late here so I don't have time to test, but would a
> recursive map be con
On Feb 24, 10:30 pm, ".Bill Smith" wrote:
> I finally got around to writing an "unbean" function. As the name
> suggests, it's the reverse of the bean function: it takes a class and
> a map of property name/values and returns an instance of that class
> with those property values. So for examp
