> > I fail the see the logic in that, sorry. Why just not throw any scope > > limiting away? > > > in this particular case: yes. dont forget that property model is entirely > about convinience in the first place, and flattening scopes is just another > part of that convenience :)
So you write a class with a certain member, but as you don't want people to directly access that member, you don't provide an mutator method. Someone else takes a look at your class and decides to directly access the member using property model regardles. I know people can do it with introspection anyway, but it arguably breaches encapsulation. If you have a component/ page with members and in that component/ page you link a property model to it, I think it is fair to say you'd like to access the property as an implementation detail. But for regular domain objects, I don't see why normal rules of encapsulation wouldn't apply. Anyway, we built the damn thing so we know about it, though I - as a member of the dev team - didn't even know about this 'feature' until recently, neither did Martijn give this any special mention in his chapter on models so far. Also, this is the second time the topic comes up, so I don't think it is as obvious or intuitive as you are suggesting. Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
