On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 12:52 +1000, Brett Porter wrote: > So does this mean that it works without the property parameter?
Only if the field name matches the name of the getter/setter methods. If the property name is not specified then the setter will fail and the private field will be used directly. > If > that's the case, then I'm fine with it and we can just use the default > case with property as the field name. property can remain as an advanced > use case. I still wonder how this could be made to be useful - attach > the metadata to the getter instead perhaps (like in beanshell)? That would probably make more sense, I just left it with the field for the moment to get it to work. > - Brett > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- jvz. Jason van Zyl jason at maven.org http://maven.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
