The new @Bindable feature seems to create a bit of confusion because of
the new autobinding="annotation" configuration.
If I recall well, the same confusion was too when the binding to public
fields feature was introduced :).
I don't think this "confusion" has to do with the binding type or if
it's default configured or not, but with the binding concept in itself.
Maybe some sort of simple graphical illustration (not just UML) of the
concept would help more :) (for both binding types).
I like that public field binding feature however quite much, because
it's quite practical:
- most of the time, there's no reason for public fields in a page, so
(once this concept known), it's clear that if a public field is there,
it must be auto-bound :).
Even more, a Click user reported that is writing a simple IDE (IntelliJ
and NB too if I remember) improvement to highlight public fields if
they're present in a Page class descent, so regarding "readability", the
annotation version won't be more "visible" than the old style binding.
I think autobinding
should be changed so that the @Bindable annotation is recognized by
default, instead of having to explicitly enable it.
Any thoughts on this change?
If this is made by default, in the upgrade-path this change should be
mentioned distinctively, since most applications (at least those I saw
so far) still use the public field binding approach.
Adrian.
