Hi Goktug,
nice approach. IMHO getters and setters should not be required to be
annotated by @JsProperty. Instead a method looking like a getter or setter
that is actually not a property accessor should be annotated (Convention
over configuration).
I would love to see this coming...
Cheers
Interesting idea; though we still need an annotation when the name is not a
valid java identifier and also can't find a good name to mark the exception
case.
Another issue is anyone who is not aware of convention can be surprised by
it (e.g. developer renames a method and the method is no longer a
Nice writeup. Comments/questions (since comments seem disabled in the docs):
* @Entry looks great - there has been some discussion in IRC about some
way to do this for easier library wrapping code, but every direction we
looked at with JSOs ended up with a little more cruft than we really
Thanks for the feedback.
My response are inline:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Colin Alworth niloc...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice writeup. Comments/questions (since comments seem disabled in the
docs):
* @Entry looks great - there has been some discussion in IRC about some
way to do this for
