Sorry that wasn't very clear was it! Basically, I thought one approach would be to add a name and type parameter to the @property tag
@property(name="symbol", type="String|OMElement",....) and then (I'm assuming - based on my limited knowledge of annotations) we could automatically generate getters and setters. The problem with this approach is that the getters/setters would not be available for command completion in the IDE, so I ditched this idea. Paul On Nov 20, 2007 11:47 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 2007 11:44 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > - the action could really be optional as its not so hard for the runtime > > > to see that the value has been changed and set/getandset would just be a > > > performance optimisation > > > > I guess so. It depends on whether we generate the property and > > getters/setters or not. I was kind of assuming that we wouldn't generate > > them. Alternatively we could cache values before and after the execute > > method, but thats a bit yucky, I think its so simple to use an annotation, > > and also since you get command completion for annotations inside IDEs we can > > make it a required property. > > > > > > What do you mean by "generate the property and getters/setters"? > > ...ant > -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
