Hi Andrus, and y'all. I've been looking into this and it seems like a rather large change to allow something relatively simple (allowing DataObjects to have accessor methods that don't start with a "get"-prefix).
Would people be diametrically opposed to just changing BeanAccessor so that it seeks for a non-prefixed method if a prefixed one isn't found? That modification is minimal and shouldn't affect any current users, so I can think of. Cheers, - hugi > On 20 Sep 2018, at 16:08, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > > 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 >>> >> >
