Brett Ryan wrote: > Yes, these two are vastly different, as I've expressed earlier you > can't simply identify a property on a Class, take my attached example > a few posts ago and you'll see what I mean. > > When you traverse Foo.class.getDeclaredMethods() that match a pattern > of set|get.* and then pair the two up as a property. as also > mentioned, what if getFoo returned a String, while syntactically > correct, this is not type safe. > > get/set methods hide the implementation, but they don't enforce the > fact. A property enforces this by exposing the get/set as one. > Er, you might not /like/ the JavaBeans APIs, etc, but they do all of this.
I won't claim the JavaBeans area does not need improvement (as per my previous posts on this thread), but it is disingenuous to claim that we don't already have properties today that unify getters and setters appropriately. Just because the means of attaining them are not the same syntactic sugar you see in another language does not mean that (a) they're not there and (b) that they're not usable. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
