I think this is a good idea. However, I wonder if it is necessary to add the extra syntax? Could we be smart enough to use a getter/setter if one exists, else resort to direct field access? Then there would be no need for the extra parenthesis syntax.
Jeff Butler On 2/9/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all, I found a few hours tonight to implement direct-to-field mappings. I don't have any energy left to explain it fully, but it's simple to use, so here's the summary. To implement this, I changed the ClassInfo to accept a new pattern of "property" access. You can now wrap a field names in round brackets to distinguish them from properties. So: "id" is a property. "(id)" is a field. These can be mixed with properties like: "account.(address).street" This last point is important and is the primary reason I didn't use a new XML tag -- that would have severely limited the mix-n-match ability of the feature (and it would have been harder to implement). This approach works for reads and writes and for both inline or external parameter maps and result maps. It should be ubiquitous. Anywhere you used to use property names, you can now use (field) names too. Thoughts? It's not too late to change the syntax (round brackets) or anything else. I think it's the simplest, most flexible and performant approach. Cheers, Clinton
