That's not how parameters work. The access to the field, both read and write, is "enhanced" by Tapestry. Updating the field fires off some behavior to push the new value, through the binding object, into the bound property of the component's container.
Likewise, reading a parameter field will fire off the behavior related to reading the property value via the binding. There's also a lot going on in terms of caching the value (while rendering, or if the binding is invariant) and clearing the value out at the end of the request (to get rid of dangling references, etc.). On 9/8/07, Marcus Schmidke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I've written a component which has a parameter field marked as > "@Parameter". This works fine, but if I try to do some other work in > the setter method for this parameter, I can see that it isn't called. > > Trying to put @Parameter annotation on the method fails because it's a > field annotation. > > Shouldn't, if present, the setter be used instead of directly writing > into the field? > > Marcus. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Partner and Senior Architect at Feature50 Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind
