Oh, now I remember. We didn't like the fact that subclasses could
modify private members of their base classes this way. As I recall, we
also didn't like the fact that it effectively limits the caller to one
invocation of bind() per class hierarchy, since anything else would
perform redundant binds as it walked up the tree.
At this point, I could go either way. I can certainly see arguments
for simplifying the method signature by reducing it to one argument.
We could get around the private base member issue by only binding to
private members in the leaf type; we'd only bind to public or
protected members in the base classes. The need to bind to multiple
classes in the same hiearchy does seem like an edge case.
G
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Greg Brown wrote:
It allows the caller to specify which members to bind to. Without
the type argument, bind() would need to walk up the type hierarchy
and attempt to bind to each superclass of the calling class as well
as the class itself. In fact, it used to work that way, and at the
moment I can't remember why we changed it. The single-arg signature
does seem more intuitive.
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Christopher Brind wrote:
Hi,
Just wondering what the logic is behind having two arguments for the
bind method on the WTKXSerializer?
Instead of:
public <T> void bind(T t, Class<? super T> type) throws
BindException {
Field[] fields = type.getDeclaredFields();
Why not:
public <T> void bind(T t) throws BindException {
Field[] fields = t.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
In fact, why is this parameterised at all? Wouldn't this suffice?
public void bind(Object t) throws BindException {
Field[] fields = t.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
Cheers,
Chris
