On 5/26/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure how you can be burned by not having direct access to a > member while there are getters and setters available.
My mistake. The cases that keep flashing in my head provided getters (if even that) but no setters. In those cases, I had problems because the superclass would use the instance without going through the getter, so even if I overrode the getter, I couldn't make the change the behavior of the superclass. Hubert > On the other > hand, making a member directly accessable severely curbs the ability > to change the class implementation without breaking backwards > compatibility. Suppose at some point that you decide you don't want to > keep a reference to the member in the class, but retrieve it on the > fly. Or perhaps you decide that you want to keep the reference in a > cache of weak references. You're hosed, because any code that used > that member is now broken. > > This is something that I really dislike in a lot of the Struts code. > For much of it, it's no doubt too late to change. However, I'd very > much prefer that we don't continue to exacerbate the problem. > > -- > Martin Cooper > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
