On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Scott Sanders wrote:
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:42:03 -0800
> From: Scott Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] - PropertyUtils - bug 5639
>
> > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Is it just that no one is watching out for PropertyUtils, or the
> > > people who usually watch on it are busy?
> > >
> >
> > The latter.
> >
> > There is also an important philosophical issue here -- it
> > breaks conformance with standard JavaBeans definition of the
> > semantics for indexed properties, which does *not* include
> > List based support. That's worth some reflective discussion
> > first, and (so far) I remain somewhat unconvinced that we
> > should deviate here.
>
>
> I would think that we *should* deviate. I would assume that this would
> be very useful, even if it doesn't follow the standard JavaBeans
> definition. In the end, it is all about easier access to an object.
IMHO, that is *not* the only goal of PropertyUtils. It's original purpose
was to faithfully mirror JavaBeans semantics for properties accessed by
name (via reflection) instead of by direct method calls.
> I
> think List access as an index adds value. But the question is, what do
> you so if you want to set() an indexed List property?
>
According to the JavaBeans spec, there *is* no such thing as an indexed
List property :-).
But I take your point -- if you want to go ahead and add support for this
to getIndexedProperty() and setIndexedProperty(), I won't -1 it.
> Scott
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
