Hi Toby, yes, you can either use direct access to fields (which have to be public field definitions, though), or specify a custom setter method on the field mapping, e.g.
<field name="foo" type="Foo" set-method="addFoo" ge-method="getFoo"> <bind-xml .... /> </field> I hope this helps. Regards Werner Toby wrote: > Cheers, I kind of thought so just wanted to get a professionals opinion :D > > I guess when using a mapping file I should set direct=true? > > ta > > 2008/8/3 Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Hi Toby, >> >> I guess you will have to use a mapping file and define a setter/adder >> method to avoid that (particular) problem. >> >> Werner >> >> Toby wrote: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Just a quick one, does anyone have any tips about >> marshalling/unmarshalling >>> immutable objects? I'm not using a mapping file (at the moment) and >>> discovered when one of my classes is unmarshalled (it marshals ok), it >> uses >>> the getter to get a collection then adds to it and so "re-loads" the >> object >>> from the XML. However, my immutable object guards against such >> modification >>> (its immutable) and so it returns a copy of the collection (so any adds >> to >>> it wont really count). >>> >>> I understood from the docs that if no getter is provided it'll try and >> use >>> the field/direct access, is that right? Otherwise, I guess my options are >> to >>> use a mapping file and control things better? I kinda like the default >>> behaviour though ;) >>> >>> Cheers >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
