velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Barbara Baughman <baugh...@utdallas.edu>
Subject Re: Bean Introspection
Date Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:08:00 GMT
There could be public constants within the system that are used within
the JVM, but the programmer never meant to make them available to
outsiders.  Things like allowable minimums and maximums, etc. may be
intended to be rather private.

Barbara Baughman
X2157

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Nathan Bubna wrote:

> Well, I think the idea is that if a programmer specifically designates
> a field as public, then that should count as specifically designating
> it for web designer use.  I don't see that as entirely unreasonable.
> Also, if the field lookup the were the last option checked, then i
> believe adding it to "basic Velocity" would only potentially break
> places where $foo.bar formerly rendered as $foo.bar.  Seems unlikely.
>
> Still, if nothing else, we already have the FieldMethodizer in the
> distribution.  We could always add the PublicFieldUberspect to the
> core and not use it as the default.  Then it is a simple configuration
> change away from those who do want it.
>
> Anyway, i'm not likely to ever use this myself nor ever be bothered by
> its presence, so i could really go either way. :)
>
> On 8/25/06, Barbara Baughman <baughman@utdallas.edu> wrote:
> > But this would NOT be backwards compatible.  It is quite possible to
> > have public fields as a convenience for programs running within the
> > JVM, but it would not be desirable to provide access to a web
> > designer.  Velocity is based on a philosophy that the web designer
> > will only have access to information that is specifically designated
> > for their use.
> >
> > So you can use a tool, but I'm hoping basic Velocity would never
> > incorporate this.
> >
> > Barbara Baughman
> > X2157
> >
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Gyanesh M Khanolkar wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have read in many forums for requests to read public fields ALSO incase
> > > the getters are missing. But it seems we are still going by the JavaBean
> > > specification which allows us to access the property ONLY via a getter
> > > variable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Preferably we would want to avoid the painful getters as it bloats up our
> > > already existing code.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Would it be possible for you to reconsider this approach where
> > > $UserObj.FirstName will check with the getters : getFirstName() /
> > > getfirstName() and if both were not found, then it accesses the public
> > > variable FirstName.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Introduction of this feature would be of great help as it helps us to reduce
> > > writing additional code which is often of no use.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Gyanesh
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message