It would be pretty easy to generate it as a static inner class using the entity template, then all the code is generated. Do the BeanInfo classes have to be registered somewhere?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: > Thanks John, implementing a BeanInfo class for eaach entity specifying > method names actually works fine! > The BeanInfo class can be associated with the superclass and placed in > it’s package so it’s mostly out of the way, here’s an example > implementation for an entity called “Product” containing a single property > called “name”. > > https://gist.github.com/hugith/d1958e9ead2d3c1a390d > > Something of a hassle to have to do this for the entire object graph, > though. > > Cheers, > - hugi > > > > > On 24. júl. 2015, at 14:15, John Huss <johnth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In theory the bean spec allows you to specify a BeanInfo object that can > > allow you to use different naming conventions, but in practice most > > libraries cut corners and just assume "get" and "set". I'm not sure if > it > > works with Cayenne's Property and PropertyUtils however. For myself I > > found it easier to just add the "get" prefix. > > > > John > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> > > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >>>> > >> > >> > >
