Ok, I think that makes sense. I'll open a JIRA to address this. Thanks everyone for the comments!
Lin On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jarek Gawor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
