I searched the mail archives, but I am not privy to what Jeff originally
described. Is it anything similar to what I've been talking about?
Please send me a link or email :-)
Thanks!
Paul
Clinton Begin wrote:
Okay guys. I'm convinced. Let's give this thread 24 hours for anyone
else who wants to chime in. If nobody speaks up, we'll implement it
the way Jeff described it originally.
I think it will be cool regardless. I'm actually feeling pretty dumb
for not implementing this 3 years ago...it was way too easy to have
not done it long ago. it was a couple of extra methods and a few line
changes in about 5 classes... :-/
Cheers,
Clinton
On 2/9/07, Poitras Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
