Jason Lee wrote on 5/18/10 11:58 AM:
> On 5/18/10 1:15 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>> I looked into adding support to ParamModel for getting these default
>> values from the fields, but it was just too big of a change. Right
>> now the model has all the information it needs without reference to
>> an instance of the class, changing that started to get pretty ugly.
>> I wasn't happy with the result, so I gave up.
> My from the hip idea was to do something like
>
> instance = clazz.newInstance();
> for each field :
> param = field.getAnnotation(Param.class)
> value =
> if (param.defaultValue == null):
> param.defaultValue = field.get(instance)
>
> Roughly. Seems like we could do that when building up the ParamModel
> and not have to keep the instance around, but I've though on that only
> fairly abstractly. However...
Creating an instance just to extract this value is pretty disgusting,
and as you said might have side effects. Using an existing instance
was pretty disgusting too, at least the way I was trying to do it.
>> The simple answer is that you have to put the default value in the
>> annotation. I know, I know, I don't like it either, but I like it
>> better than the alternative I came up with. Maybe you can do better...
> This is certainly the easier solution, even if it is more work up
> front. At some point, someone is going to touch all of the Param usages
> to add the camelCaseName attribute we decided upon last week, so it
> would be fairly trivial to add this additional, minor change. There's a
> good chance the REST team will get to do a lot of that, so I don't mind
> suggesting the extra work. :)
camelCaseName attribute? Looking forward to your writeup of the issues
and decision after our last meeting on this subject...