Yes, you're absolutely right about that. Constructor injection is our goal going forward. It's quite a bit harder to implement than direct field mapping, but I would like to see it. I may look into it next week.
Direct field is still important though, for people that don't buy into constructor injection (why? I dunno!). ;-) Clinton On 2/11/07, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isn't that what constructors are for? On 2/11/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Absolutely not. :-) > > Direct field mapping for the purposes of immutable classes or non-bean > types would be pointless. So yes, we're completely ignoring private > on fields, setters, and constructors. > > I don't see a problem with it...it's how it's done. We won't break > getter/setter encapsulation, because if the methods exists, we use > them. > > Believe it or not, doing this allows people to build safer > applications. JavaBeans are the real threat to encapsulation. They > force us to have public mutators and a default constructor, both of > which can result in a class ending up in an inconsistent state. > > So yes. Our framework (like many) ignores access modifiers so that > programmers can actually USE access modifiers effectively. > > How ironic. ;-) > > Clinton > > On 2/10/07, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just curious. Are we still honoring access privileges on fields or are we > > doing an end around on them and setting regardless? I'm hoping we still > > honor public, package, protected, private. Otherwise that can get > > unpredictable. > > > > Brandon > > > > On 2/10/07, Paul Benedict < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Very well. In fact, the fallback to fields may turn out to be > > > advantageous. Let's see how it goes, as you said, and listen to the > > > feedback. Thanks Clinton! > > > > > > Clinton Begin wrote: > > > > I think we need a stronger argument for a switch than "I might shoot > > > > myself in the foot". :-) > > > > > > > > It's pretty simple to force methods to be called (write them) and to > > > > avoid fields from being loaded in odd cases (don't include them in the > > > > select clause). > > > > > > > > Let's give it some time the way it is, and if many people start > > > > finding unexpected results due to field mappings, then let's add a > > > > switch at that time. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Clinton > > > > > > > >
