Matej Knopp-2 wrote: > > Also your approach wouldn't work for things like "property1.property2" > where property 2 container type depends on result of property 1 > evaluation. >
I can see how it's easy to assume that this can't work, but I tried it, and I had no trouble at all making it work with chained properties. It works fine with both getters and setters. There is one caveat: It works only if the method can be written using direct calls without any casting. So, for the property chain "student.major.adviser", if you can write this: Adviser adviser = thing.getStudent().getMajor().getAdviser(); then my approach works fine with property chaining. But if the statement needs to look like this: Adviser adviser = ((ThesisProject)thing.getStudent().getMajor()).getAdviser(); then my approach won't work. (I'm not sure if PropertyResolver will work in this case, but I suspect it will.) ----- There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary and those who don't. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PropertyResolver-redesign-tp16495644p16576062.html Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
