Why couldn't it access the attribute field directly? -Matej
On 8/25/07, Paolo Di Tommaso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree. If you make the PropertyModel access private getter and setter I > don't see any reason because it cannot access the attribute field directly > (when the getter and setter are omitted) . > > - Paolo > > On 8/24/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Just to be pedantic they are not ignored: > > > with "public getXXX" and "private setXXX" the property is read only > > > with "public getXXX" and "no setXXX" the property is read only > > > with "no getXXX" and "public setXXX" property is read and write > > > > I would say that if the field exists, it should always use that. I > > think we should improve it. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Eelco > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
