But the binding is as pluggable as possible. You can write any IModel
implementation you want. Think of (Compound)PropertyModel as pure
convenience implementation (that works for 99% usecases). With wicket, you
don't think of mapping http requests to bean. But you have to think about
mapping components to beans, because that's a fundamental thing in wicket
(thus IModel).
Anyway, I think if there is a public getter and private setter, we should
honor the private setter and don't touch the field directly.
-Matej
On 8/25/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> From a newbie perspective, for what it is worth, say I had a class:
> private Object secret;
> private String temp;
> public getSecret() {return temp;}
> private setSecret(Object p) {secret = p;}
> So I think I have a read only property secret that comes from temp it is
> going to get confusing when Wicket goes in directly and sets/gets Object
> secret.
>
> I know it has been very well discussed and thought out but disregarding
> encapsulation is a bit of a turn off for us newbies.
>
> Pushing my luck but possible to make the model binding more pluggable? Any
> of the Swing etc systems work well? One of the things I was looking
> forward
> to moving from struts hell was to not have to think about HTTPRequest to
> Bean mapping.
>
>
> Matej Knopp-2 wrote:
> >
> > Why couldn't it access the attribute field directly?
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > On 8/25/07, Paolo Di Tommaso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-to-Wicket-data-binding-tf4322899.html#a12324979
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
