Actually, not sure what the "name" attribute is for, it really just needs
the xpath doesn't it so all those could just be
@property(xpath="/ns:getQuote/Symbol")?
...ant
On Nov 20, 2007 12:30 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure it needs a getter/setter generated or the type attribute
> specified on the property annottaion. The @property annotation could be
> used on either a field or getter/setter method:
>
> @property(name="symbol")
> String value
>
> or
>
> @property(name="symbol")
> public void setValue(String s) {
> value = s;
> }
>
> or
>
> @property(name="symbol")
> public String getValue() {
> return value;
> }
>
> The annotation is associated with the field or method so the type can
> easily be introspected from that.
>
> Also, when the annotation is associated with a method you can see if its a
> getter or a setter so the action can be determined from the method name
> (get=out, set=in).
>
> ...ant
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2007 11:52 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sorry that wasn't very clear was it!
> >
> > Basically, I thought one approach would be to add a name and type
> > parameter to the
> > @property tag
> >
> > @property(name="symbol", type="String|OMElement",....)
> >
> > and then (I'm assuming - based on my limited knowledge of annotations)
> > we could automatically generate getters and setters.
> >
> > The problem with this approach is that the getters/setters would not be
> > available for command completion in the IDE, so I ditched this idea.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On Nov 20, 2007 11:47 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 20, 2007 11:44 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > - the action could really be optional as its not so hard for the
> > > > > runtime to see that the value has been changed and set/getandset
> > > > > would just
> > > > > be a performance optimisation
> > > >
> > > > I guess so. It depends on whether we generate the property and
> > > > getters/setters or not. I was kind of assuming that we wouldn't generate
> > > > them. Alternatively we could cache values before and after the execute
> > > > method, but thats a bit yucky, I think its so simple to use an
> > > > annotation,
> > > > and also since you get command completion for annotations inside IDEs
> > > > we can
> > > > make it a required property.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "generate the property and getters/setters"?
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Fremantle
> > Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
> > OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >
> > blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >
>
>
