I am really wonderung why an abstract class cannot be used as component
(page) class.
The reason why I am wondering:
Let's suppose I have a few pages with some shared functionality. I'd
like to create a base class:
public abstract class BasePage{
@Property
private Object someProp;
public abstract Object getSomeProp();
public void setSomeProp(Object someProp)
}
and a few implementing classes like this one:
public abstract PageOne extends BasePage{
...
}
I need these getter and setter for my property. I cannot write them
myself, because T5 then complains. I cannot include the abstract
definition, because component classes cannot be abstract.
I do not want to define the property in each subclass. (Makes
subclassing useless in the first place). And I certainly don't want to
generate getters and setters which do not accord to the Java Bean naming
conventions, just to be able to access the property in my subclasses.
Couldn't tapestry allow
- allow abstract classes as component classes
- allow the declaration of abstracrt getters and setters for the
properties (like T4 and T3)
Or at least:
- allow me to write getters and setters myself. If they exist, T5
should not attempt to recreate
them when enhancing component classes.
What do you think?
Andy
Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
