> I did think about it, and it's not logical. Why do I
> want to lump getters
> and setters together to fit some artificial notion of
> a "property?" The
> answer is I don't. I don't think there's a
> justification for doing so that
> matters to users, and there are plenty of reason for
> a getter
On 6/27/06, Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It has to do with the java.beans.Introspector. It doesn't find the properties
correctly if the getter and setter don't match. It won't be able to figure out
what the property type is if they aren't the same for the same name.
It's in Secti
I did think about it, and it's not logical. Why do I want to lump getters
and setters together to fit some artificial notion of a "property?" The
answer is I don't. I don't think there's a justification for doing so that
matters to users, and there are plenty of reason for a getter and setter to
r
It has to do with the java.beans.Introspector. It doesn't find the properties
correctly if the getter and setter don't match. It won't be able to figure out
what the property type is if they aren't the same for the same name. I don't
remember what the heuristic is, but if you think about it, it
You can use GWT standalone, but it also makes sense to use it for rich
components embedded in a normal web page. For example, you could use
it to implement an AJAX table component which can sort columns and
page-by-page iterate.
As for using XWork on the server side, I personally wouldn't do it
b
I'd be up for lifting the restriction, but I also don't have access to
the code.
/Ian
Bob Lee wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. What a silly restriction. Anybody up for
removing it? I don't have access to the OGNL source.
Bob
On 6/27/06, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've come
Thanks for the explanation. What a silly restriction. Anybody up for
removing it? I don't have access to the OGNL source.
Bob
On 6/27/06, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've come across this also, and the way I explained it was that it had
something to do with matching getters and set
On 6/27/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've run into this problem with OGNL where I want it to invoke a setter, but
if there's a getter method with the same property name but a different type,
OGNL will just fail silently. Why does it even care about the getter? Anyone
have an idea of wha
I've come across this also, and the way I explained it was that it had
something to do with matching getters and setters to be well formed java
beans. Although I never took the time to look into it further.
/Ian
Bob Lee wrote:
I've run into this problem with OGNL where I want it to invoke a
On 6/25/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I would say that GWT
> is more likely to replace web frameworks than work with them.
I wouldn't phrase it quite like that. It's more lik
I've run into this problem with OGNL where I want it to invoke a setter, but
if there's a getter method with the same property name but a different type,
OGNL will just fail silently. Why does it even care about the getter? Anyone
have an idea of what's going on here?
I'm working against the OGNL
Martin -
I think we are saying the same thing - and I think you confirm this in
your last paragraph.
Rather than web frameworks, using GWT I think developers are more likely
to integrate directly with XWork (as a generic command infrastructure,
rather than a web front controller), Spring or
Hi All
Announcement message from the JAVAWUG
I am pleased to announce that Patrick Lightbody's presentation
for BayCHI Silicon Valley Bay Area JUG is NOW available from GoogleVideo.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6908607645517853283
Thanks to Mike Van-Riper, and also to Dav
On 6/27/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find two uses of action mappings in my applications. One loads data for view, another
writes data and then goes to a view. These views, I suppose, would logically be
"pages" if Stru
On 6/23/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I find two uses of action mappings in my applications. One loads data for view, another
writes data and then goes to a view. These views, I suppose, would logically be
"pages" if Struts were a page-based controller. But I do find this kind of
15 matches
Mail list logo
