On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:24 PM, manuel aldana <ald...@gmx.de> wrote: > Why was the decision taken that fields must be private for @Property > (security reasons, so fields can't be changed directly from default > visibility -> package level)? From testing perspective this is not so nice.
First of all, OOP recomends private fields for almost any situation. Regarding @Property, I guess it was a implementation issue. All Tapestry annotations must be put in private fields. If they could have another visibility, Tapestry would have to locate all places that use that field. If they're private, you only have to look at that class. If you use need field access outside the declaring class, use getters and setters instead of @Property or create package-private methods for testing purposes like Igor suggested. That's exactly what Tapestry does in its components. -- Thiago --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
