How can I argue with that advice? :-) However, I am a man of many errors
and I will not be able to use unit tests to find these problems anymore
unless there is a way for iBatis to tell me I forgot my methods. I
really really don't want direct-field access to bite my designs. It
might just be too easy for bugs to get by unless the tool is smarter.
Paul
Clinton Begin wrote:
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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
