> the point isnt that they are wicket-specific. the point is that they are > reusable, so if i take a component you wrote and put it into a panel i am > writing i dont want to put it into an inconsistent state by calling some > setter i shouldnt. ive done that before and had to go look into the source > to see what was going on. that is why if you look at a lot of wicket code i > wrote i use a lot of inner class models instead of getters/setters. when > that got annoying i discussed this feature with johan and he put it in. i > think we did have an announcement about it, but maybe we forgot :|
I'm probably confused with support for public fields then. We've had that from almost the start. :) Anyway, I'm convinced now that what we have is good. We can go over the API documentation to see whether we sufficiently warn people, and we can see whether there is something we can do to make creating a custom property model that doesn't allow direct access to private members a bit easier. I agree with Igor that we shouldn't add a new class for this in the core project. Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
