On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've never said saving typing is always bad. As I said in another post,
saving typing at the cost of static type checking sometimes is a
justified tradeoff (eg, regex). Just that I've never seen that being
done at the cost of exposing implementation details.
see, this is where we disagree. i think putting public setters and getters
for things that are really meant to be only private is exposing
implementation details. if someone goes hunting for a private field - and
they do have to go hunting for it unless it is code they wrote - that is by
their choice. you havent leaked anything, they went looking and they can
access it with or without property model.
the securitymanager concern is valid, albeit having a functioning
securitymanager is a rare occurence. i was going to suggest having an
application setting to enable this feature in propertymodel, but now that i
think about it it can break libraries that were written with this feature
being enabled in mind. so i think it is best to simply leave it the way it
is - always on.
but, i think what we can do and what is simple and elegant is to restrict
access to fields that are declared on the class being introspected -
ignoring its superclass hierarchy. that way we limit the scope and still
have it viable for usecases where it is really useful.
-igor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
