I agree with Igor here. If you are really concerned about protecting private fields, your only option is running with a security manager. Otherwise there will always be a way around it. Being able to access private field is convenient and reduces code clutter. Even though it's not the "cleanest" way around, the practical benefits IMHO outweight the drawbacks.
-Matej On 8/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/25/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So you write a class with a certain member, but as you don't want > > people to directly access that member, you don't provide an mutator > > method. Someone else takes a look at your class and decides to > > directly access the member using property model regardles. I know > > people can do it with introspection anyway, but it arguably breaches > > encapsulation. > > > my point is only that if people wanted to do this they could with or > without > the propertymodel. and if you realllllly dont like it just go ahead and > install a security manater. > > > If you have a component/ page with members and in that > > component/ page you link a property model to it, I think it is fair to > > say you'd like to access the property as an implementation detail. But > > for regular domain objects, I don't see why normal rules of > > encapsulation wouldn't apply. > > > what if i have a non-public top level class in my ui package sitting next > to > the component that uses it as a propertymodel object? all im saying is > that > narrowing it down to a direct property of a component is too narrow. in > fact > it just makes it more confusing when it does and does not work. > > Anyway, we built the damn thing so we know about it, though I - as a > > member of the dev team - didn't even know about this 'feature' until > > recently, neither did Martijn give this any special mention in his > > chapter on models so far. Also, this is the second time the topic > > comes up, so I don't think it is as obvious or intuitive as you are > > suggesting. > > > yes it is the second time this topic comes up out of how many of thousands > of users there are.... > > i dont know. i think this feature is very convenient. it is not something > you can toggle on and off because 3rd party components might be written > with > this in mind. so i would say keep it, end of story. but that is just me. > > -igor > > > Eelco > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
