I agree. If you make the PropertyModel access private getter and setter I
don't see any reason because it cannot access the attribute field directly
(when the getter and setter are omitted) .
- Paolo
On 8/24/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to be pedantic they are not
Why couldn't it access the attribute field directly?
-Matej
On 8/25/07, Paolo Di Tommaso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. If you make the PropertyModel access private getter and setter I
don't see any reason because it cannot access the attribute field directly
(when the getter and setter
Hi,
Is it possible to populate both list boxes on Palette component?
Or even only right one (Selected)?
Usually I only want to change order, and in rare cases to remove some items.
So populating only selected box would be preferable.
Regards,
Vatroslav
--
View this message in context:
that box is populated from the selection model, so make sure the collection
in that model has the selected items
-igor
On 8/25/07, Vatroslav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to populate both list boxes on Palette component?
Or even only right one (Selected)?
Usually I only want
On 8/25/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the binding is as pluggable as possible. You can write any IModel
implementation you want. Think of (Compound)PropertyModel as pure
convenience implementation (that works for 99% usecases). With wicket, you
don't think of mapping http
On 8/25/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think that is a foolish argument as you are assuming property model should
only work on _beans_
it is perfectly normal to do something like this:
class data { public String name; public int age; }
Yes, I hope you didn't really think that I
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
always try setter/getter first, if not fallback onto the field.
+1
Direct field access works typically so I like to omit
accessor bloat when possible, and if you need any special
handling in the accessor just create the accessor method for
it.
If you
On 8/25/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/25/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/25/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think that is a foolish argument as you are assuming property model
should
only work on _beans_
it is perfectly normal to do
I fail the see the logic in that, sorry. Why just not throw any scope
limiting away?
in this particular case: yes. dont forget that property model is entirely
about convinience in the first place, and flattening scopes is just another
part of that convenience :)
So you write a class with
On 8/25/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you write a class with a certain member, but as you don't want
people to directly access that member, you don't provide an mutator
method. Someone else takes a look at your class and decides to
directly access the member using property
I agree with Igor here. If you are really concerned about protecting private
fields, your only option is running with a security manager. Otherwise there
will always be a way around it. Being able to access private field is
convenient and reduces code clutter. Even though it's not the cleanest way
yes it is the second time this topic comes up out of how many of thousands
of users there are
i dont know. i think this feature is very convenient. it is not something
you can toggle on and off because 3rd party components might be written with
this in mind. so i would say keep it, end
On 8/25/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, I'd like to hear a good argument why we shouldn't just say:
if you want to access members directly, just make them public. If you
want to avoid clutter (i.e. writing getters and setters) and you don't
care about breaking
either the example is broken or your ide does not copy .html files from the
src dir to the classes dir.
-igor
On 8/25/07, hhuynh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've tried out the examples of wicket-contrib-gmap2-examples and got this
below error. I'm pretty new to Wicket so I'm not sure
Thanks for tip. I added this to my pom and it works fine now. Eclipse doesn't
copy non-java files over automatically.
resources
resource
directorysrc/main/java/directory
includes
there is a setting to make it do so, cant quiet remember where it is right
now.
-igot
On 8/25/07, hhuynh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for tip. I added this to my pom and it works fine now. Eclipse
doesn't
copy non-java files over automatically.
resources
16 matches
Mail list logo
