So far, there's no switch to turn it on or off. I guess I'm thinking if you want to enforce that it go through methods, then write the methods. :-)
Clinton On 2/10/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clinton, That's awesome! Good job! May I ask if this field-setter access is something I need to turn on or off? I hope so. I want to enforce my usage to go through methods. Paul Clinton Begin wrote: > Okay... > > I've made the change. It now uses fields only if a get or set method > doesn't exist. Of course, the decision is independent for get and > set, so if a set doesn't exist, but a get does, it will use the field > for setting, but the getter for getting. I've also enabled private > constructor access. > > Basically this means, iBATIS now works with POJOs for real... we don't > depend on the JavaBeans spec at all really. You can use your own > property syntax and private default constructors with parameterized > constructors for programmatic construction. > > Pretty cool stuff really. > > Cheers, > Clinton > > On 2/10/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > If you >> > have getters/setters then we'll use them. If not, then we'll use >> the fields >> > directly. End of story. >> >> This is my preference now. >> >> The person that asked me about field mappings that originally got me >> to work on it last week is of the mind that we should just keep it >> simple like this. Since that was your gut feeling as well as Paul's, >> I think we should run with it. >> >> I think we're over-thinking the solution now. Let us come down from >> our ivory tower. :-) >> >> Clinton >> >> On 2/10/07, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Is there any realistic non-academic use case for bypassing the >> > getters/setters if they exist? In other words, if you want to go by >> plane >> > then don't rent a car :) >> > >> > We really encourage people to keep their POJOs simple. I'd sure >> hate to see >> > us encourage wierd or overly complex design just because we can. >> Maybe we >> > should bypass all the non-standard syntax and configuration >> options. If you >> > have getters/setters then we'll use them. If not, then we'll use >> the fields >> > directly. End of story. >> > >> > Jeff Butler >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 2/10/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > OGNL uses property notation syntax which calls getters and >> setters. As >> > > for the parenthesis syntax, there is no precedent in the market >> for such >> > > a syntax being used to access fields directly. The syntax should >> be the >> > > same (I want to navigate to X), with an additional attribute >> specifying >> > > how it should be done (take me by plane or car). >> > > >> > > Paul >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
