Jess Holle wrote: > There's no reason that the getter/setter conventions from the > JavaBeans spec cannot be interpreted in just as type-safe a manner as > some official "Property" construct. > > I will /not/ argue that the current state of affairs is anywhere near > perfect here in Java. For starters: > > 1. One should be able to use properties more directly in a > type-safe manner (e.g. via an -> operator) > * The Java compiler would understand JavaBeans as components > and do type-safe usage thereof -- rather than forcing one > to go through reflective APIs. > 2. One should be able to communicate details to JavaBeans metadata > more easily, e.g. via annotations > Note that JMX 2.0 (targeted for Java 7) introduces annotations along the lines of (2) for MBeans. What's missing is such annotations for JavaBeans.
-- Jess Holle --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
