Leif Hanack wrote:
>>>i think the loss of using interfaces is a big disadvantage. on the
>>>serverside it will not be clear, why i have a class User with getter
>>>and setter and a User2 with just setter.
>>
>>I disagree. I believe it's a huge advantage. It means that I don't have to
>>code server
> > i think the loss of using interfaces is a big disadvantage. on the
> > serverside it will not be clear, why i have a class User with getter
> > and setter and a User2 with just setter.
>
> I disagree. I believe it's a huge advantage. It means that I don't have to
> code server-side objects spe
> > i think the loss of using interfaces is a big disadvantage. on the
> > serverside it will not be clear, why i have a class User with getter
> > and setter and a User2 with just setter.
>
> One of the prices we pay for more convenience for page authors is the loss
> of some distinctions like t
> -Original Message-
> From: Leif Hanack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:47 AM
> To: Tag Libraries Users List
> Subject: RE: jstl: expression language does not use interface?!!
>
>
>
> > If you don't want to let the use
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Leif Hanack wrote:
> > If you don't want to let the user set information on an object with
> > , it must not have setter methods. You can always wrap the
> > underlying object in a wrapper that provides only one-way access, but an
> > interface does not provide this protecti
> If you don't want to let the user set information on an object with
> , it must not have setter methods. You can always wrap the
> underlying object in a wrapper that provides only one-way access, but an
> interface does not provide this protection.
mmh?! thanks so fare. i'm a bit disappointe
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Leif Hanack wrote:
> with jstl i still can set a new value:
>
>
>
> why?! is this a bug?!
>
> it seems as if the EL does not care about which interface i defined.
> he always work on the real object type.
>
> any help?!
Indeed, this is the specified behavior, and nothin
