(http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/v3/reference/en/html/persistent-classes.html#persistent-classes-pojo-accessors). > However, I don't see why PropertyModel (or Wicket code in general) is in > such a special position. It is part of the UI and I don't see why UI code > should need access to implementation details. > > I don't know how Spring access private fields, so I can't comment on that > one. > > So, is this feature a recommended practice or just a backdoor for those > who prefer using public fields?
That's a good point. I agree with your reasoning. I think we support that because users asked it (I know, that's kind of a weak argument), and we probably thought it wouldn't hurt much. I don't think I ever use it myself tbh. Maybe we should get rid of this. But let's see what other developers and users think. Please don't hold back :) Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
