Sorry yes. I agree Wicket has a very elegant solution to giving developers
choice of how to get data between components and model.
Matej Knopp-2 wrote:
>
> But the binding is as pluggable as possible. You can write any IModel
> implementation you want. Think of (Compound)PropertyModel as pure
> convenience implementation (that works for 99% usecases). With wicket, you
> don't think of mapping http requests to bean. But you have to think about
> mapping components to beans, because that's a fundamental thing in wicket
> (thus IModel).
>
> Anyway, I think if there is a public getter and private setter, we should
> honor the private setter and don't touch the field directly.
>
> -Matej
>
> On 8/25/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From a newbie perspective, for what it is worth, say I had a class:
>> private Object secret;
>> private String temp;
>> public getSecret() {return temp;}
>> private setSecret(Object p) {secret = p;}
>> So I think I have a read only property secret that comes from temp it is
>> going to get confusing when Wicket goes in directly and sets/gets Object
>> secret.
>>
>> I know it has been very well discussed and thought out but disregarding
>> encapsulation is a bit of a turn off for us newbies.
>>
>> Pushing my luck but possible to make the model binding more pluggable?
>> Any
>> of the Swing etc systems work well? One of the things I was looking
>> forward
>> to moving from struts hell was to not have to think about HTTPRequest to
>> Bean mapping.
>>
>>
>> Matej Knopp-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > 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]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-to-Wicket-data-binding-tf4322899.html#a12324979
>> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-to-Wicket-data-binding-tf4322899.html#a12325312
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
