Jumpstart - instantiate object comment
Hi T5 Users and Jumpstart Geoff, Whilst checking out some ValueEncoder stuff I just thought I'd ask seeing as it gets brought up a lot (Thiago/Taha) :) This example on jumpstart [1] has two ValueEncoder instantiated at the declaration of the field. As I understand this is a no-no and should be in either onActivate() or SetupRender(). Is this correct? Another example [2] doesn't use the @Property annotation and just instantiates the field if required on the getter - which would not raise any blood pressures... Have a good weekend! Kind Regards, Chris [1] http://jumpstart.doublenegative.com.au/jumpstart/examples/tables/editablegridforupdate1 [2] http://jumpstart.doublenegative.com.au/jumpstart/examples/select/easyobject -- View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Jumpstart-instantiate-object-comment-tp5720166.html Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Jumpstart - instantiate object comment
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 06:24:03 -0300, mvchris ch...@mrvoip.com.au wrote: Hi T5 Users and Jumpstart Geoff, Hi! Whilst checking out some ValueEncoder stuff I just thought I'd ask seeing as it gets brought up a lot (Thiago/Taha) :) This example on jumpstart [1] has two ValueEncoder instantiated at the declaration of the field. As I understand this is a no-no and should be in either onActivate() or SetupRender(). Is this correct? It's correct for a general rule, but in some cases it's not really a problem. In [1], the field is final. The problem is with mutable fields with mutable state. It's not a problem for primitive types nor classes with immutable fields, such as Integer. -- Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
