On 8/25/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i completely agree with you. my point is that its been brought up, but > do > > you see anyone else jumping in on this conversation and voicing their > > opinion? you are basically championing this thread because you are a > core > > dev. there are other users on this list, if they were just as concerned > > about this im sure they would voice it once the thread got started. > > Ok, let's get back to two other occasions: setting the response page > in the constructor and setting feedback messages in the constructor. > Both occasions were similar threads like these: a user reports > something, I'm fighting half of the development team against the > status quo, get accused of championing something that is just > theoretical, etc.
those were both _practical_ problems. someone _tried_ to call those methods in their code and it _didnt work as expected_. so it was fixed. this is purely theoretical. Why can't we just argue to just 'get it right'? To > my knowledge - and that might be my sloppy memory - we never actually > had a proper discussion about this. Maybe you and Johan and Matej had, > but I don't remember OK-ing the fact that having a private setter > would block, while having no setter would open it up again. I can't > imagine I would agree with that tbh. And that's all fine, we can have > that discussion now. The only thing I want to get clear from this > thread is whether we all think what we have now is good. I think it > isn't. all i asked johan to do was to tweak property resolver to allow access to private stuff. i was under the impression that the property resolver always tries to access the getter/setter first, then the field. half of this thread you are arguing that we shouldnt allow access to private fields/methods and half of it you are arguing that we should but try the getter first, so im pretty confused. -igor For the sake of clarity, I think this: > > with "public getXXX" and "private setXXX" the property is read only > with "public getXXX" and "no setXXX" the property is read only > > is not the way to go. > > I'm arguing for either using that private setter even though it is > private (since we access the private member as well), or not allowing > any private access and just tell people to use public members instead > (and I still haven't heard a convincing argument against that). > > > Eelco > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
