Hi, While I think this restriction is unreasonable the CT does test for it and blueprint appears to fail that particular test.
Thanks Alasdair On 24 August 2010 17:07, Lin Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > Having only one setter is valid. Having multiple setters are valid too. > > However, there has to be one setter that is same as the return type of > the getter. > > Lin > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do you actually mean that having only a setter is not valid ? >> >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 17:32, Lin Sun <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> Open Source SOA >> http://fusesource.com >> > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
