>
> That's a good question. At first I was thinking no because this is a
> pretty basic change in the return values from this... but it is probably
> a pretty safe enhancement and may fix some issues...
>
> Anyone else have thoughts on this?
>
> -David
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Should we not merge this in release ?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> De : <
[hidden email]>
>>> Author: jonesde
>>> Date: Mon Sep 17 19:09:09 2007
>>> New Revision: 576660
>>>
>>> URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=576660&view=rev>>> Log:
>>> Changed to use BigDecimal.valueOf instead of constructor, for
>>> something closer to the expected results; thanks to Jacopo and
>> Martin Anderson for comments on this
>>> Modified:
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/GenericEntity.java
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/GenericEntity.java
>>> URL:
>>
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/GenericEntity.java?rev=576660&r1=576659&r2=576660&view=diff
>>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>
>>> ---
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/GenericEntity.java
>>> (original)
>>> +++
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/GenericEntity.java
>>> Mon Sep 17 19:09:09 2007
>>> @@ -588,9 +588,9 @@
>>> // NOTE: for things to generally work properly BigDecimal
>>> should really be used as the java-type in the field type def
>> XML files
>>> Object value = get(name);
>>> if (value instanceof Double) {
>>> - return new BigDecimal(((Double) value).doubleValue());
>>> + return BigDecimal.valueOf(((Double) value).doubleValue());
>>> } else {
>>> - return (BigDecimal) get(name);
>>> + return (BigDecimal) value;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Locked
