As far as property setters go, I see no reason not to have just the one
method, but doesn't velocity just use the same method invocation
solution for setters as it does any other method?
john mcnally
Attila Szegedi wrote:
>
> An issue cropped up:
>
> - Right now, ASTReference supports setting of a property, and will look up
> the setter method based on the property name AND the class of the right-hand
> side value. So, in current Velocity design a single property can have
> multiple property writers (i.e. both setFoo(Foo f) and setFoo(Bar b)). If we
> switch to JavaBeans introspection, we will always have a SINGLE property
> write method per property. Is this an issue of concern, or is this just an
> artifact of the fact that ASTReference uses Introspector.getMethod(), and we
> can happily switch over to using the single property write method returned
> from JavaBeans introspection? Fortunately, this is not issue for property
> read methods, as they have no arguments, so only one can exist for any given
> property name. I needn't say I favor the use of single property setter, the
> one returned from JavaBeans introspection.
>
> - BTW, is it any good having a template engine being able to call setXxx
> methods, thus potentially altering underlying data (or business) objects?
>
> Attila.
