Laurie Harper wrote:
The restriction comes from the Java relection API semantics, not OGNL. A
property can only have one type, so it makes sense that the getter and
setter for a JavaBean property must agree on that type. Changing this
would break compatibility with the JavaBean specification, a
The restriction comes from the Java relection API semantics, not OGNL. A
property can only have one type, so it makes sense that the getter and
setter for a JavaBean property must agree on that type. Changing this
would break compatibility with the JavaBean specification, at the least...
L.
I
> 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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
