No, what Jeff originally described in this thread, that you already agreed with. ;-)
Clinton On 2/9/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 >> >
