On 8/25/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.


my point is only that if people wanted to do this they could with or without
the propertymodel. and if you realllllly dont like it just go ahead and
install a security manater.


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.


what if i have a non-public top level class in my ui package sitting next to
the component that uses it as a propertymodel object? all im saying is that
narrowing it down to a direct property of a component is too narrow. in fact
it just makes it more confusing when it does and does not work.

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.


yes it is the second time this topic comes up out of how many of thousands
of users there are....

i dont know. i think this feature is very convenient. it is not something
you can toggle on and off because 3rd party components might be written with
this in mind. so i would say keep it, end of story. but that is just me.

-igor


Eelco
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to