John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Daniel Rall wrote: > ... > > >> It would make sense for all the methods which throw TorqueException to >> be protected -- especially save(), which is currently a security >> problem if you've got non-trusted code manipulating your business >> objects (which Helm already does). I think we could skip the torque_ >> prefix for the all methods, or at the very lest for the standard >> getters and setters (though it might be better to do all or nothing >> for consistancy). >> > > The reasoning for attaching such a prefix was to remove the likelihood > of conflicting with an interface method. Though that can be accounted > for by choosing a different javaName column attribute. > It does not work for the save method and other hardcoded method names. > Ok, I will add the ability to set the access level (on a global basis), > unless someone beats me to it.
This will be *Excellent*. Thank you John. > There was a suggestion to move the save method to the manager. I think > this might be a good idea, the one in the business object will probably > soon just call a manager method and deprecated soon after. I like this idea as well. It removes the possiblity of interface conflicts. +1 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
