On 8/25/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> yeah, well, not everyone likes that spec. swt uses public fields and seems
> to work just fine.So I wasn't complete. In case you really though I am against directly accessing public fields: I am not. Getters/ setters first and then public fields is fine, preferably even. > > 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. I fail the see the logic in that, sorry. Why just not throw any scope limiting away? Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
