Thanks for replying, Making the set method private does not work and results in the same exception as having no public setter.
Any other thoughts? On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Patrick Angeles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have you tried private/default scoped setter methods, and would that be an > okay compromise for what you want to do? > > > lars vonk wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I realized that when I have a getter, but no setter for a certain >> property on a Model object for form components it fails with the >> message that it can't find a setter. When I don't have any getters and >> setters the binding still works since it uses field access. >> >> I expect this intended behavior, right? If so, what are your thoughts >> about changing this that for instance to be able to define a sort of >> "property strategy" for binding values to your model object. I would >> like to have getters for my model objects, but no setters. >> >> Or am I overlooking something here and is it already possible to >> define the "property strategy"? >> >> Regards, >> >> Lars >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/getter-setter-strategy-for-models-tp18810507p18820993.html > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
