From: "Victor Volle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But why not use 'Property' then the name clash doesn't arise? > > I would not like to call a "Field" that has no > getters and setters a "Property" because I think it > clashes with the meaning of "Property" in JavaBeans.
A Property by the definition of the interface and where it fits necessarily has a get and set. What I mean is that the get and set are on the Property object, not necessarily on the original object/bean. Another problem with attribute is the XML connection. With how the code is defined at present, properties become XML elements, attributes of the properties become attributes of those elements. Thus the attribute name is convenient. Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
