2014-09-02 18:11 GMT+02:00 Jesse Glick <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:38 AM, nicolas de loof > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If a @DataBoundConstructor is required then this new annotation only > offer > > half the benefit I expected > > What is the problem? The @DBC can still be used for a couple mandatory > fields. By having an empty one you clearly indicate that all fields > are optional. >
I never considered this to be a way to declare optional attributes, just expected @DataBoundSetter to be an alternative to @DataBoundConstructor (fully removing it) just like @Inject filed injection in a CDI context. > > > I also wonder why the name, not just "@DataBound". > > Well if the constructor annotation were @DataBound to begin with, then > it would make sense to just expand its target types. Since it is not, > it is more consistent to name it according to what it is. > @DataBoundSetter applies to fields, so the confusion. a more global @DataBound to match them all would be a more generic mechanism > > (Yes you can use @DBS on a field, but this is poor style, since you > then lose control over data migration if someone in another plugin > accesses your field directly. Prefer to use it on a setter method, > with a matching getter method that need not be annotated.) > Question of style. I prefer to avoid setters to reduce code verbosity. Or Lombock style programming > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
