Have you tried private/default scoped setter methods, and would that be an okay compromise for what you want to do?
lars vonk wrote: > > Hi, > > I realized that when I have a getter, but no setter for a certain > property on a Model object for form components it fails with the > message that it can't find a setter. When I don't have any getters and > setters the binding still works since it uses field access. > > I expect this intended behavior, right? If so, what are your thoughts > about changing this that for instance to be able to define a sort of > "property strategy" for binding values to your model object. I would > like to have getters for my model objects, but no setters. > > Or am I overlooking something here and is it already possible to > define the "property strategy"? > > Regards, > > Lars > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/getter-setter-strategy-for-models-tp18810507p18820993.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]
