well, i think we simply live with a choice among evils. setters (and getters) are not good (in fact, mutable state in general is problematic) and other things are also bad, but java is not perfect and sometimes a non-ideal technique is needed to get something done.
Eelco Hillenius wrote: > >> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html > > Personally, I think that article is a bit far fetched. For a whole > bunch of reasons, immutability should often be preferred, but at the > same time Wicket is an example of a framework where mutability plays a > big role (or we would have been fine providing a declarative > programming model). > > The best sentence from that article to me is 'My point is that you > should not program blindly.' :-) > > Eelco > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/isVisible-vs.-setVisible-tp17860615p17879044.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
