Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

Of course, if Java had compile-time MyClass#field syntax, then that could enforce the visibility and everyone would be happy. +1! - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

Igor Vaynberg wrote: > On 7/7/07, *Eelco Hillenius* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > two points: > > > > this is relatively new, i think it made it in just before > 1.3-beta1 or > > somewhere there > > I think it's been in there for quite

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

i am als -1 on removing this. it won't help a bit also this feature is already in the PropertyResolver from november last year. So already 8 or 9 months in the code base. johan On 7/9/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm a strong -1 on removing access to private fields. This wouldn'

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

We could do the restriction, but then the question will be how predicable and confusing this behavior will be. -Matej On 7/8/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've never said saving typing is always bad. As I said in another pos

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

I'm a strong -1 on removing access to private fields. This wouldn't really change anything. When someone wants to access private fields, he/she will do that, with or without PropertyModel. -Matej On 7/8/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've never said saving typing is always bad. As I said in another post, saving typing at the cost of static type checking sometimes is a justified tradeoff (eg, regex). Just that I've never seen that being done at the cost of exposing implementati

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

gmail.com> writes: > the reason why we use getters and setters and not public fields is > because we never know what is going to happen later - and because it > is hard to refactor public field access into a getter or a setter we > opt for the more flexible, but more verbous way first. > > with

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

> This is fine and acceptable. What I'd like to find out is what we should > tell people about this feature: > 1) You should always use it. > 2) You shouldn't use it as it is going to be deprecated. > 3) You should use it only in cases like your NamePanel. I put a note/ warning in AbstractProperty

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

gmail.com> writes: > you say you are concerned with abuse, but what would this subclass > solve? those who want to abuse can then just use privatefieldmodel to > do so. No. It is designed to work with cases like your NamePanel. That kind of use is not an abuse (far from it). It would be an abus

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

> the point isnt that they are wicket-specific. the point is that they are > reusable, so if i take a component you wrote and put it into a panel i am > writing i dont want to put it into an inconsistent state by calling some > setter i shouldnt. ive done that before and had to go look into the sou

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

On 7/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > two points: > > this is relatively new, i think it made it in just before 1.3-beta1 or > somewhere there I think it's been in there for quite a while. But as I never depended on it, I wouldn't know. > you didnt know about it, so of course

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

> two points: > > this is relatively new, i think it made it in just before 1.3-beta1 or > somewhere there I think it's been in there for quite a while. But as I never depended on it, I wouldn't know. > you didnt know about it, so of course you would be writing > getters/setters Heh. My point is

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would a specialized PropertyModel subclass (eg, PrivateFieldModel) do > the job? you say you are concerned with abuse, but what would this subclass solve? those who want to abuse can then just use privatefieldmodel to do so. if you are really conc

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martijn Dashorst gmail.com> writes: > > > For a Java bean class, most likely every field is to be read sooner > or later. According to this argument of speed, we should simply > use public fields for all Java bean classes? As I said before, I > don

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

On 7/6/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, just take a look at the project we are working on together. Such > fields mostly have getters and setters :) two points: this is relatively new, i think it made it in just before 1.3-beta1 or somewhere there you didnt know about it,

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

Igor Vaynberg gmail.com> writes: > i disagree completely. the most common usecase for this is for components > to access their own private fields via property model. > class namepanel extends formcomponentpanel { > private string first; > private string last; > namepanel(..) { > add(new t

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

Martijn Dashorst gmail.com> writes: > Like it or not, propertymodels already break encapsulation, the law of > demeter and refactoring without having to resort to private accessors. > So if you go all OO, these things should never be used, especially > since there is a perfect OO alternative: Wh

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

On 7/7/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we accept that 1) is a good reason for allowing private field access, > then according to the same reasoning, we should always make our fields > public and thus eliminate the need for getters and setters. As we are > not going that, so I believe

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

> i disagree completely. the most common usecase for this is for components to > access their own private fields via property model. > > class namepanel extends formcomponentpanel { > private string first; > private string last; > > namepanel(..) { > add(new textfield("first", new proper

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

On 7/6/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think your argument is willfully slanted. generic manipulation and > persistence can be good reasons to reach into an implementation which > otherwise does not wish to expose properties or fields at all. i personally > prefer objects th

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

> i didn't say that's fine. it's clearly not. i was just pointing out > there's > another side to this argument because java's protection attributes are > so coarse grained. by not supporting this feature, some classes which > otherwise would have all implementation details private would be forc

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

i didn't say that's fine. it's clearly not. i was just pointing out there's another side to this argument because java's protection attributes are so coarse grained. by not supporting this feature, some classes which otherwise would have all implementation details private would be forced t

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

> i think your argument is willfully slanted. generic manipulation and > persistence can be good reasons to reach into an implementation which > otherwise does not wish to expose properties or fields at all. i personally > prefer objects that keep all these details private. i would hope that > p

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

to give a pseudo-code example of what i mean, imagine something like this: hibernate wicket int getValue() { ... } where hibernate and wicket are attributes that expose the method only to org.apache.wicket.** and hibernate's package. this sort of thing is possible in scala, but not java. in

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

i think your argument is willfully slanted. generic manipulation and persistence can be good reasons to reach into an implementation which otherwise does not wish to expose properties or fields at all. i personally prefer objects that keep all these details private. i would hope that private

Re: [Wicket-user] access to private fields

(http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/v3/reference/en/html/persistent-classes.html#persistent-classes-pojo-accessors). > However, I don't see why PropertyModel (or Wicket code in general) is in > such a special position. It is part of the UI and I don't see why UI code > should need access to implemen