if it is not provided with setters , what do you suggest? provide it with getters?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Norman Wiechmann <n.wiechm...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् schrieb: >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Norman Wiechmann <n.wiechm...@gmx.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm wondering if there is a reason why the @Field annotation is >>> restricted >>> to setters? >> >> The preferred way is to apply the annotation to fields. it is provided >> on setters also if you prefer the set/get xxx() route. > > Ok, but fields are not my prefered way. I don't want to store all values > required for the index into extra fields. As described in my first mail, I > intend to use the annotation to generate index fields only, not to read > them. So there is no need to have always a field. Sometimes I would like to > create an solr annotated wrapper to the business object and sometimes I > would like to annotate my business object directly. > >>> In my case I would like to index beans from java using the solrj client >>> implementation. Transforming documents to beans is not required because I >>> use queries to Solr from JavaScript only. >>> >>> To avoid the creation of setter methods just to use the @Field annotation >>> I >>> extended SolrServer to overwrite getBinder() and added an >>> DocumentObjectBinder implementation that supports @Field annotations at >>> bean >>> property getter methods. >>> >>> For me it feels very unusual to add annotations to setters. It does not >>> match with the experience I have from other libraries like JPA or JAXB. >>> >>> Best, Norman > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Noble Paul | Systems Architect| AOL | http://aol.com
