well even if that is no more strictly true (we rewrap for several cases it in super properties) we could still wrap the properties in the setter
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> 2015-06-17 18:12 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>: > Hi Alex! > > The motivation there is slightly more than philosophical. The properties > in AbstractService is actually not the standard java.util.Properties, but > rather an implementation which is case-insensitive. The library we use to > construct the services themselves, xbean-reflect, is also setup to use > case-insensitive object attributes. > > If we were to add a setProperties method, we'd have to in some way ensure > it has the same feature or pull all the properties out and move them in. > > > -- > David Blevins > http://twitter.com/dblevins > http://www.tomitribe.com > > On Jun 17, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Alex Soto <asot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, currently I am developing an application which I am registering > > dynamically resources using Assembler class. > > > > I have seen that AbstractService has a field called properties that you > can > > only get information from it but not set it. All other fields has its own > > getter/setter except this one. I think that if there is nothing against > it > > it should have a setter too so I can dynamically set properties too. > > > > The class is here: > > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/config/sys/AbstractService.java > > > > I can provide a PR if you agree. > > > > Alex. > >
