Hi, how come we always end up talking about issues like these in regular intervals ... ;-). Anyhow, let's take all arguments in (incl. for example that the EJB 3.0 spec is changing in this regard, which I didn't know myself), and let's try to come to a well-defined decision. Does somebody feel like opening a page on Confluence so that everbody can share his/hr thoughts ?
Werner > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralf Joachim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Jänner 2006 23:12 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [castor-user] Using castor with setters > > In addition to Jay's arguments EJB 3.0 does not define > restrictions for access to properties but access to > getters/setters is restricted to public or protected methods. > > I'd view marshalling/unmarshalling or persistence as an > internal function of the class even if its implemented > externaly by castor. > Therefore I would allow castor to access non public > properties, maybe also getters/setters, to enable users to > specify design contracts for their classes as requested by > Jay. By restricting access of castor to public > properties/methods we prevent or users to implement such > design contracts. > > Ralf > > > Jay Goldman schrieb: > > >Werner - to try to make you more excited about the idea... > >I would say that a purpose of castor is to provide a mechanism for > >instantiating Java objects from non-Java stuff (xml, jdo). In this > >regard castor can be viewed as a replacement for java serialization. > >IMHO this gives castor license to cross the public/private 'barrier' > >when the user of castor has asked for this behavior (i.e., via > >direct="true") just as java serialization allows for the setting of > >private data. I would even extend it to private setters as I prefer > >having all access to an object go thru a setter. If the writer of the > >mapping has said use method SetXxx then use it. If there is > no mapping > >file then only public methods should be used. > > > >Moreover, it would in fact allow the user of castor to create objects > >with the proper public/private contracts which is currently > impossible > >to do since to use castor you have to make all your setters (and/or > >members) public which defeats the whole notion of public/private. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Werner Guttmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:23 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [castor-user] Using castor with setters > > > >Ralf, > > > >there's actually a Jira issue, but I am not sure whether I am excited > >about adding this feature. The folks who designed Java must have > >distinguished between public and private access by thought, > and I am not > >sure whether enabling access to something that has been designed by > >contract is the right way to go. I know that that feature > has been added > >to Java, but I'd still want to respect the design of a > public interface > >(read contract) when somebody apparently put some thoughts into this. > > > >Just my 0.02 cents > > > >Werner > > > >Ralf Joachim wrote: > > > > > >>You are quite right. I should have thought a bit more on my > suggestion > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>:-( > >> > >>I think we should allow to access private properties when > >> > >> > >direct="true" > > > > > >>is set. The access to setters/getters should be still restricted to > >>public in my opinon. Can you please search jira if there is such a > >>issue or create a new one if not. > >> > >>Ralf > >> > >> > >>Jay Goldman schrieb: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Doesn't the use of direct="true" require the property to be public, > >>> > >>> > >not any better than requiring that there be a public setter. > > > > > >>>If castor would access a private property (when > direct="true") or even > >>> > >>> > >a private setter (set-method="private_setter") then the goal of > >restricting updates to just castor unmarshalling could be achieved; > >otherwise, I haven't figured out how to get there. > > > > > >>>I'm still using 0.9.3 - have things changed in this area? > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Ralf Joachim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:38 AM > >>>To: [email protected] > >>>Subject: Re: [castor-user] Using castor with setters > >>> > >>>Hi Mike, > >>> > >>>you can tell castor to directly access the property by setting > >>> > >>> > >direct="true" on the field in your mapping. > > > > > >>>You may also want to have a look at: > >>> > >>>http://castor.codehaus.org/xml-mapping.html#3.4-The-%3Cfiel > d%3E-elemen > >>>t > >>> > >>>Ralf > >>> > >>> > >>>Mike Wannamaker schrieb: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>If I want to use Castor to write out objects to XML and I have > >>>>getters for all attributes but I don't have setters how can I get > >>>>this to work for reading it back in? > >>>> > >>>>IE: The API exposes getters like String getName(); > however I don't > >>>>want to expose a setName(String sName); method otherwise > people using > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>the api would be able to call setName(). Is there a way > to do this > >>>> > >>>> > >in Castor? > > > > > >>>>--ekiM > >>>>Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it > deosn't mttaer > >>>>in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny > iprmoatnt tihng is > >>>>taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The > rset can be > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is > >>>>bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a > >>>> > >>>> > >wlohe. > > > > > >>>>------------------------------------------------- > >>>>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty > >>>>message to the following address: > >>>> > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > >------------------------------------------------- > >If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an > empty message > >to the following address: > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------- > >If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > >send an empty message to the following address: > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > send an empty message to the following address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty message to the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------
