> "Should Cayenne by default work without prefixed accessors".
My answer to this : "By default, no. As a fallback or a custom strategy, possibly." I actually agree about Java beans. They are almost irrelevant now. And I wish Java gets "data classes" and some transparent form of "properties". As things stand now though, there's no common established alternative based on a naming convention that we can safely hardcode without causing grief for someone because they didn't expect that their method would be called when evaluating expressions. Hence my preference for a DI fix. So how about this... Unless someone else steps in by then, let me brainstorm it with Nikita a couple of weeks from now and see if we can do a DI solution. It is not nearly as involved as it appears. Andrus > On Sep 25, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: > > Hi Andrus and thanks for the reply, > > allowing replacement of the entire reflection strategy is certainly nice and > would allow me to make the customizations I need. > > However, if it's OK with you, rather than discuss implementation details, I'd > like to take two steps back and revert to the more philosophical design > question of: > > "Should Cayenne by default work without prefixed accessors". > > What is there to be lost or gained from keeping or abandoning the > prefix-requirement? > > I believe I can safely assert that Cayenne works fine without accessor > prefixes, since I've used it that way on dozens of projects, so it looks like > a somewhat arbitrary limitation. It's only with the introduction of field > based DOs that we get a problem in a very isolated part of the framework. > > It seems to me that the java ecosystem is moving towards more modern API > design—we've even got the architect of the Java language calling the > bean-style "at best a questionable -- and certainly overused -- API naming > convention" [http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/amber/datum.html > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/amber/datum.html>] (pardon the appeal > to authority, but considering where it comes from, it's probably a good > barometer for where java language and API design is headed). > > I'd say that the framework would be well served and future-proofed by > dropping the requirement for hard-coded accessor prefixes as a baked in > requirement. > > Cheers, > - hugi > > > >> On 25 Sep 2018, at 11:15, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Hugi, >> >> My vote would be to do it right. There is a positive side effect that the >> entire reflection strategy suddenly becomes customizable. >> >> Andrus >> >> >>> On Sep 25, 2018, at 7:11 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
