I agree to your observation, Dave. Point well made. I would like to get
a comment from you about my claim about backwards incompatibility, though.
Robert
Dave Newton schrieb:
Robert Graf-Waczenski wrote:
And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as
accessor method naming pattern was a bad one originally but we lived
with it since the beginning and are now being bitten in the behind :-)
That about sums it up, I think.
I'm assuming the naming convention "mProperty" is designed to increase
internal readability by showing that the property is an instance
variable. Using the "m" convention in the getters/setters then
propagates implementation details to the outside world, which defeats
the purpose of getters and setters.
Folks that use an underscore convention ("_property") would name the
getter "getProperty", not "get_Property" or "get_property".
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
