No objections to this "swing-only" solution.
Thanks, 2006/10/6, Oleg Khaschansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Tim, I attached a patch which doesn't have side effects to HARMONY-1723 :) -- Oleg On 10/6/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
-- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
