On 8/25/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/25/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i think that is a foolish argument as you are assuming property model
> should
> > only work on _beans_
> > it is perfectly normal to do something like this:
> >
> > class data { public String name; public int age; }
>
> Yes, I hope you didn't really think that I would be against using
> public fields directly were you?!well, this is what you said: "Maybe we could do something in between. If the target of a property model is a component, the model can work on the member directly (should first try *any* setter and if none is available, use the field), but if the target is not, it should only work via getters and setters." > and wicket should work with this. if this data object is a private inner > of > > something and is only used there wth is the point of creating > > getters/setters? > > Because that confirms to the bean spec and to what probably 90% of > people would initially expect. yeah, well, not everyone likes that spec. swt uses public fields and seems to work just fine. > so our property model should work like this: > > > > always try setter/getter first, if not fallback onto the field. > > > > i dont really see a danger of propertymodel accessing private members > > because you can do it yourself if you wanted - and in fact you ARE doing > it > > yourself by specifying that property path. > > That is a ridiculous statement. how do you mean? are you saying that propertymodel has some special jvm magic that can access fields you otherwise could not? my point is...how do you even know the path to the private field unless you already did some poking around, or it is your own code. -igor Eelco > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
