I agree. If you make the PropertyModel access private getter and setter I don't see any reason because it cannot access the attribute field directly (when the getter and setter are omitted) .
- Paolo On 8/24/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just to be pedantic they are not ignored: > > with "public getXXX" and "private setXXX" the property is read only > > with "public getXXX" and "no setXXX" the property is read only > > with "no getXXX" and "public setXXX" property is read and write > > I would say that if the field exists, it should always use that. I > think we should improve it. > > WDYT? > > Eelco > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
