I guess you have a point. Probably 90% of developpers won't want to know how the real path used... Even if knowing it is interesting, it might disapoint people to force them to know it in advance. In other cases, getters may include code that will be skipped using direct field access. Now the point to this email is that iBATIS didn't force people to have an idea of the implementation before writting xml files. Changing this habit may reduce the interest of iBATIS as a simple tool for O/R mapping. Personally, I am afraid of the reactions some people will have when they'll begin mixing beans, pojos and maps (all 3 for crazy people only!, but most pojos/maps users). Another problem will arise with resultMaps that will need this notation at the same time (to know if we call a setter or a use the field). I personally think it is to late to force people to change their iBATIS habit. But make sure that they'll know what the framework will do. For instance calling the getter if present, if not accessing the field directly. Maybe the notation can be optionnal and will force iBATIS to try accessing the field first, then the getter if field is not present. Think this would do? Christian
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict Sent: Friday, 09 February 2007 15:17 To: dev@ibatis.apache.org Subject: Re: Direct-to-Field mappings now implemented. Poitras and Clinton, I agree. The refactoring argument is pretty strong. Property notation is script-like because the actual means to get to the value (method vs. direct-field access) is totally secondary to the intention. The developer just needs to express the path, and the framework should be intelligent enough to get there. But we can't assume the developer always wants direct-field access, which is why the option must be turned on. PS: -1 on the brackets. Paul
