Hi Hugi, 1. I can't think of anything inside Cayenne that would rely on a getter (Property.getFrom(..) is user-facing API that is not directly related to persistence). So you should be safe otherwise.
2. I am with Mike - if you can, better switch to JavaBean getters. You'll avoid lots of pain integrating with anything else in Java. Andrus > On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Michael Gentry <mgen...@masslight.net> wrote: > > Hi Hugi, > > I don't know offhand everywhere in Cayenne that get* is required, but > Cayenne's default templates and expectations are that the JavaBeans > notation (get/set/is) prefixes will be used. Many other frameworks, such > as Apache Tapestry, work flawlessly with Cayenne because of the JavaBeans > notation, but would fail if get* were missing. > > I used to use EOF/Objective-C, too, and at first the get* seemed annoying, > but now within Eclipse it is easy to type "get" and let the autocompletion > popup show me my options, which you can't do without that prefix. Overall, > I think get* is a win because it is easier to find your getters and it > makes Cayenne work with other frameworks that expect the standard prefixes. > > mrg > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: > >> Hi all. >> >> I don’t use “get" prefixes on the accessors for attributes on my >> DataObjects. This has worked flawlessly until now, but I just stumbled onto >> a case where it will cause a failure inside Cayenne’s world, i.e. when >> attempting to access property values on objects using >> org.apache.cayenne.exp.Property.getFrom( someObject ). >> >> The method documentation explicitly states that a bean-style get-prefix is >> required, so this was to be expected. But I’m wondering if there are more >> places where Cayenne depends on it and if the requirement for the “get” >> prefix should be eliminated entirely within Cayenne’s universe? (I’m sure >> I’m not the only one who is not fond of using it) >> >> I got around this particular case by implementing my own “poor man’s >> KeyValueCoding” (for those of you familiar with EOF), but it would be nice >> not having to do something of that ilk. >> >> Cheers, >> - hugi >> >> // Hugi Thordarson >> // http://www.loftfar.is/ >> // s. 895-6688 >>
