Okay... I've made the change. It now uses fields only if a get or set method doesn't exist. Of course, the decision is independent for get and set, so if a set doesn't exist, but a get does, it will use the field for setting, but the getter for getting. I've also enabled private constructor access.
Basically this means, iBATIS now works with POJOs for real... we don't depend on the JavaBeans spec at all really. You can use your own property syntax and private default constructors with parameterized constructors for programmatic construction. Pretty cool stuff really. Cheers, Clinton On 2/10/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you > have getters/setters then we'll use them. If not, then we'll use the fields > directly. End of story. This is my preference now. The person that asked me about field mappings that originally got me to work on it last week is of the mind that we should just keep it simple like this. Since that was your gut feeling as well as Paul's, I think we should run with it. I think we're over-thinking the solution now. Let us come down from our ivory tower. :-) Clinton On 2/10/07, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any realistic non-academic use case for bypassing the > getters/setters if they exist? In other words, if you want to go by plane > then don't rent a car :) > > We really encourage people to keep their POJOs simple. I'd sure hate to see > us encourage wierd or overly complex design just because we can. Maybe we > should bypass all the non-standard syntax and configuration options. If you > have getters/setters then we'll use them. If not, then we'll use the fields > directly. End of story. > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > On 2/10/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OGNL uses property notation syntax which calls getters and setters. As > > for the parenthesis syntax, there is no precedent in the market for such > > a syntax being used to access fields directly. The syntax should be the > > same (I want to navigate to X), with an additional attribute specifying > > how it should be done (take me by plane or car). > > > > Paul > > > > > > >
