tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Menard <kmen...@servprise.com>
Subject Re: T5: adding accessors back to corelib components?
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:23:48 GMT
I like the name @Property better . . . maps better to the language-level
construct of properties.  @GenerateAccessors, while descriptive, is verbose.

I think what be even better is support in the var prefix for arbitrary data
types.  I'm hoping with OGNL support forthcoming that this can be achieved.
Then properties that only exist as temporary values for components can be
yanked from the class altogether.

-- 
Kevin

On 3/5/08 8:59 PM, "Howard Lewis Ship" <hlship@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just struck me, would @Property be a better name for the annotation
> than @GenerateAccessors?
> 
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Christian Edward Gruber
> <christianedwardgruber@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I hear you.  I'm hoping to use this all over the place now, since most
>>  accessors are boilerplate.  Always hated them... or rather the manual
>>  creation of them.
>> 
>>  Christian.
>> 
>> 
>>  On 5-Mar-08, at 16:22 , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just got a little greedy about removing code and raising the code
>>> coverage % a little. :-)
>>> 
>>> Stuck at 93% isn't too bad, though.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org


Mime
View raw message