Hi Maik, In Cayenne a canonical way to override services is via DI. A PR that follows that approach has a good chance of acceptance.
From a quick glance, I wonder if this new DI endpoint should be a factory of ClassDescriptorMap (which is currently lazily created inside EntityResolver). We can't make ClassDescriptorMap itself DI-managed as it depends on the mapping state, but a factory for it can be a DI singleton. Inside your custom factory (a few levels down actually) you can provide a subclass of BeanAccessor (maybe also via its own DI factory?). Andrus > On Sep 19, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Maik Musall <m...@selbstdenker.ag> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd like to pull up this discussion from one year ago again. I'm currently > running 4.0 and testing upgrading to 4.1 using field-based DataObjects, and > I'm hitting the hard-coded prefixes in BeanAccessor that prevent me from > proceeding. > > Yes, in theory I could sigh, yield, and use "get" prefixes, but not only do I > dislike introducing the "get" boilerplate everywhere. I am also somewhat > reluctant to make a refactoring touching some 800+ files in my project. To be > honest, I'd rather patch BeanAccessor to personal taste and deal with the > consequences. > > BeanAccessor is currently always called by it's constructor. In addition to > the options Hugi described in his original mail in this thread, I could also > imagine a way to modify this to be able to inject a custom Accessor > implementation as an alternative. What do you think? > > And… what would happen if someone would submit a pull request actually > implementing one of these options? :-) > > Cheers > Maik > > >> 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 >> >
