On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:31:55AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
> > > data.getParameters().setProperties(user, transformations)
> >
> > -1 because this is setProperties specific.
>
> I feel that it is setProperties specific. If it was done in
> a transformation class then we would be duplicating all
> the property code. Wouldn't we?
Okay, I see your point - I could think about it that way. I guess if you
are writing out getXXX calls then you can do the transforms yourself.
There's a few things going on in this area - there is intake, then I had
an idea about adding some stuff to both torque and setProperties that
optimises away the use of reflection (that hasn't hit the list yet -
I'll check the mail went off OK, my MTA has been having a few
disagreements with list.working-dogs.com).
So we don't want too many methods of doing the same thing (the turbine
blight), it would be nice to work things out so that there is one
all-singing method of doing automatic form input/validation. And right
now intake looks like the the methodology that's closes to that. So
maybe we should be looking at how to get transformation functionality in
*there*.
I think setProperties is a neat way of getting the setXXX methods of a
business object called without having to explicitly code it, but for
functionality beyond that intake is the way forward.
But given your arguments I'll switch my vote to -0.
(and if you do want to implement it your design with getClass etc looks
fine...)
Sean
--
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
