+1 :-)
> Am 26.09.2017 um 15:32 schrieb Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is>:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> thanks for an honest attempt to convince me. Hard sell, though. :)
>
> I use a lot of 3rd party libraries and I've only hit one time where using the
> bean spec was necessary — JasperReports. That was easily fixed by providing
> *BeanInfo classes, in accordance with the Bean spec. But Cayenne doesn't
> really follow the Java Bean Spec, it just hardcodes "is", "get" and "set".
>
> As for the Eclipse thing… Well. A standard DataObject already has five
> methods prefixed with "get" so that list is questionable. And I don't miss
> this functionality.
>
> I think it's important to note that the change I'm proposing would not affect
> those who choose to add the prefix. It just accommodates those of us who
> choose not to, thus expanding the audience of the framework.
>
> Cheers,
> - hugi
>
>
>
>> On 26 Sep 2017, at 12:01, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hugi,
>>
>> Let me try to sell you on the "get" prefix. :-)
>>
>> (I did a lot of WebObjects/EOF in the past, in Objective-C and Java, so I
>> understand the reluctance.)
>>
>> * The "get" prefix is part of the JavaBeans standard/contract. With the
>> exception of "is" for booleans (with a little "b").
>>
>> * There are tons of Java frameworks out there that expect and utilize the
>> JavaBeans contract, so it is great for folding external frameworks into
>> your code. Or folding Cayenne into other frameworks, such as Tapestry. I
>> can specify Cayenne object/relationship paths in Tapestry (and other
>> frameworks) such as
>> t:value="currentItem.resourceSummary.grossCost.costs.continuingFootnote"
>> (real example). Since Tapestry expects the JavaBeans contract and Cayenne
>> provides it, this works flawlessly.
>>
>> * In Eclipse (and others, I'm sure) I can do anObject.get[pause or
>> control-space] and see all the getters associated with that object.
>> Without the get prefix, they are spread out a-z and therefore you can't get
>> as concise a list.
>>
>> mrg
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Touching on an old subject that has now become more important with
>>> field-based Data Objects.
>>>
>>> All of my DataObjects use accessor methods without the "get"-prefix. This
>>> was fine with Map Based data objects (where a MapAccessor would get
>>> property values by name), but now that my objects are field based, along
>>> comes BeanAccessor which is hardcoded to have every getter prefixed.
>>>
>>> I propose that BeanAccessor be modified to allow accessor methods without
>>> the "get"-prefix. Methods with "get" would get precedence, but if no method
>>> with a "get"-prefix exists, check for the existence of a method with only
>>> the property name.
>>>
>>> Although it's a minimal change in code, I realise it comes with a bit of
>>> potential baggage WRT testing. But this is not just to scratch a personal
>>> itch; once Cayenne 4.0 is out I want to start a large scale introduction of
>>> Cayenne to the EOF world where the get prefix is generally not liked and
>>> this change would have a big appeal. Besides, I'm not a big fan of the
>>> get-prefix myself, I find it a bit redundant :).
>>>
>>> An alternative would be to adhere to the Bean standard, and make
>>> BeanAccessor read bean meta information (usually specified in *BeanInfo
>>> classes) and get names of getter/setter methods from there. But that would
>>> be a much larger change than just checking for a method with propertyName
>>> if the getPropertyName method doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> - hugi
>
