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.
There's a bit more to the "m" than meets the eye. This is a legacy
application designed for the Struts1 MVC form/model pattern with library
code that transfers bean object properties to model object properties
and vice versa. Now, since our form classes have far more methods that
are only needed for the controller part of the application, we designed
our bean<->model transfer code around the presence of the "m" in the
getter/setter method name (to avoid accessing controller-only getters
and model utility methods). So even though your point about
implementation detail propagation still stands, it is exactly this
implementation detail that our application needs internally. Nowadays,
of course, you would do the same thing much more elegantly with
annotations, but back then, there were no annotations :-(
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
