Clinton,
That's awesome! Good job!
May I ask if this field-setter access is something I need to turn on or
off? I hope so. I want to enforce my usage to go through methods.
Paul
Clinton Begin wrote:
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
> >
> >
> >
>
