On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we accept that 1) is a good reason for allowing private field access, > then according to the same reasoning, we should always make our fields > public and thus eliminate the need for getters and setters. As we are > not going that, so I believe 1) is not a sufficient reason.
I think this is a strawman argument. You make a mosquito an elephant in one step. Monkeys like bananas, I like bananas, therefore I am a monkey. Like it or not, propertymodels already break encapsulation, the law of demeter and refactoring without having to resort to private accessors. So if you go all OO, these things should never be used, especially since there is a perfect OO alternative: There is nobody preventing you to stop using PropertyModel and implementing Model.getObject and Model.setObject yourself, providing refactor safe, accessor only ways to bind your model to your components. It is just a lot of work. Hell, you could even install a security manager that prohibits PropertyModel completely. If you don't like to do that (given the code explosion I can imagine it), there is a second best alternative: name your fields different from the bean accessors. Nobody is preventing you to do that either. According to the best of my knowledge this was implemented because of speed. Instead of having to search through methods hooking into the fields saves quite some time. Martijn -- Wicket joins the Apache Software Foundation as Apache Wicket Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta2 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta2/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user