On 8/27/07, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > are discussing here though is quite a different case. If it is no > > problem that people access members directly, and you think getters and > > setters are too much bloat, why don't you just make them public then? > > Because it's less future proof in the current version of > Java. In a framework, it's easy to try both via accessor > method and direct field access, but in normal Java code > working with these same objects you really have to pick one > or the other. In Ruby (and I think that in some future > version of Java), the syntax of addressing a property could > be the same regardless of whether it goes directly to the > field or via the accessor method, but in Java 6 and below > you have to choose they way to access the property > explicitly. > > So if you suddenly want to add special handling when > accessing a field it's not so easy to make the field > private, add the accessor method _and_ not need to touch the > rest of the code. (Well, I remember having seen an > "encapsulate fields" refactoring in some IDE, but didn't try > it yet to see if it corrects all field access in calling > code as well, and this wouldn't anyway work with external > code.)
Have some faith :) The refactoring tools are usually quite powerfull and changing public field to property with getter and setter is a trivial thing. It's not the first time this poor horse gets flogged > > http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=106&thread=36312 > > > that is supported by most if not all EL out there. But having private > > members without getters and setters but saying they should be easily > > accessible by the outside world is kind of a double standard. > > I don't think so. If Wicket had a way of populating the > domain objects via their constructor, say with named > (constructor) parameters (which were being planned for some > future version of Java I think?), it might be. > > There are similarities between different edges of the > system, whether it be data access or UI layer. One such > issue is that often there is need to access the data of a > domain object in ways that are not necessary in domain logic > code. Maybe we should have "friend" visibility in Java too ;) > > Best wishes, > Timo > > -- > Timo Rantalaiho > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
