On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Rick McGuire <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/24/2010 4:13 AM, Valentin Mahrwald wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Aries blueprint may call getters for chained property access >> >> <property name="foo.bar" value="..." />, >> >> but I would argue the scenario below even though dodgy can still be >> supported. Essentially, I think there maybe a scenario where the setter >> takes a primitive value but the getter >> returns a complex object constructed from the primitive. In that scenario >> having different arg types might be useful. >> >> So I would think this should be a warning rather than an error scenario, >> but having the warning is probably quite useful. > > It was certainly the intent of the blueprint specification that the > setter/getter method names follow the JavaBeans design pattern of having > type matches when both a getter and setting method is implemented by the > target class. This was definitely discussed during the final spec writing > phase and the compliance tests also contain a test that validates that this > is an error. >
Right. So in short there must be a matching getter and setter of the same type and there might be additional setters that take other types. Jarek
