Re: [OT] Re: S2 2.1.8.1: Need custom decapitalization (or leniency similar to 2.1.6)
Dave Newton schrieb: Robert Graf-Waczenski wrote: And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as accessor method naming pattern was a bad one originally but we lived with it since the beginning and are now being bitten in the behind :-) That about sums it up, I think. I'm assuming the naming convention "mProperty" is designed to increase internal readability by showing that the property is an instance variable. Using the "m" convention in the getters/setters then propagates implementation details to the outside world, which defeats the purpose of getters and setters. There's a bit more to the "m" than meets the eye. This is a legacy application designed for the Struts1 MVC form/model pattern with library code that transfers bean object properties to model object properties and vice versa. Now, since our form classes have far more methods that are only needed for the controller part of the application, we designed our bean<->model transfer code around the presence of the "m" in the getter/setter method name (to avoid accessing controller-only getters and model utility methods). So even though your point about implementation detail propagation still stands, it is exactly this implementation detail that our application needs internally. Nowadays, of course, you would do the same thing much more elegantly with annotations, but back then, there were no annotations :-( Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: S2 2.1.8.1: Need custom decapitalization (or leniency similar to 2.1.6)
I agree to your observation, Dave. Point well made. I would like to get a comment from you about my claim about backwards incompatibility, though. Robert Dave Newton schrieb: Robert Graf-Waczenski wrote: And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as accessor method naming pattern was a bad one originally but we lived with it since the beginning and are now being bitten in the behind :-) That about sums it up, I think. I'm assuming the naming convention "mProperty" is designed to increase internal readability by showing that the property is an instance variable. Using the "m" convention in the getters/setters then propagates implementation details to the outside world, which defeats the purpose of getters and setters. Folks that use an underscore convention ("_property") would name the getter "getProperty", not "get_Property" or "get_property". Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
[OT] Re: S2 2.1.8.1: Need custom decapitalization (or leniency similar to 2.1.6)
Robert Graf-Waczenski wrote: And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as accessor method naming pattern was a bad one originally but we lived with it since the beginning and are now being bitten in the behind :-) That about sums it up, I think. I'm assuming the naming convention "mProperty" is designed to increase internal readability by showing that the property is an instance variable. Using the "m" convention in the getters/setters then propagates implementation details to the outside world, which defeats the purpose of getters and setters. Folks that use an underscore convention ("_property") would name the getter "getProperty", not "get_Property" or "get_property". Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org