If I understood what you're saying, then yes, that's how all other config fields are, and I'll probably change 'properties' to conform to that (unless someone else beats me to it).
Hubert On 5/26/05, Riyaz Mansoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hubert Rabago wrote: > > > Yes, but it doesn't mean I'm not open to other ideas. In this case, > > I started out reading from everywhere that fields should be private, > > and everything should go through accessors (even subclasses). But I've > > been burned by that restriction LOTs of times (in some cases, I had > > to rebuild entire libraries to get access to the fields I needed), so > > I'll need some convincing. If private fields are what's best, how come > > every other config field is protected? > > i suppose a middle ground would be to keep the properties object > protected but provide and use only accessor methods within struts? > > > :) > > riyaz > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
