Oleg Khaschansky wrote: >> So what happens to the patch on HARMONY-1723. > > My opinion is that it is OK. Consider the following: > > 1. Applications bounded to the RI behavior (e.g. obtaining the > descriptors for read-only properties without construction of getter > name) won't fail. > 2. Construction of the default getter/setter names could be > incapsulated in the PropertyDescriptor. For now there's no possibility > of getting a descriptor for one read-only/write-only property without > constructing its getter/setter name outside of the PropertyDescriptor. > 3. Don't think that it is bad if PropertyDescriptor would lookup for > reasonable defaults if provided names are invalid. > > I'd like to hear another opinion. If somebody will disagree I'll make > another fix for the TransferHandler, whithout touching beans.
Me too -- I was following your logic above and agreed, but I got the impression that Alexey disagreed with that approach, so was holding off. I have the patch applied in my workspace but will wait before committing it. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
