Re: api support

From: Greg (ghuland..ramedphotographics.com)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 20:15:28 EDT

  • Next message: Mike Schrag: "Re: api support"

    No, it is protected.

    eg

    protected String user;

    public String getUser() { return user; }
    public void setUser(String newUser) { user = newUser; }

    That is basically how WOBuilder does it.

    On 15/09/2005, at 10:02 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:

    > It should be looking at fields also -- Only public ones, though.
    > So you have a public instance field named "user" that's not being
    > found?
    >
    > On Sep 12, 2005, at 8:55 PM, Greg wrote:
    >
    >
    >> One thing I have noticed with this is that you are only using the
    >> gettter/setter's to see if a binding is correct. It would be good
    >> if you also used the classes instance variables. Since coming from
    >> Xcode and WOBuilder, the binding created was never to getUser, but
    >> rather user since KVC would handle getting the accessor for user.
    >>
    >> Greg
    >>
    >> On 12/09/2005, at 9:57 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> I thought I had posted already, but I can't find the post -- too
    >>> much programming over the weekend I think :)
    >>>
    >>> Several people have emailed me asking for this -- support for WOD
    >>> binding-name completion based on the API file is in (for project,
    >>> framework, and core components) ... Completely standing on
    >>> Ulrich's shoulders with his API parser :) . There are also a
    >>> bunch of new error checks in the WOD file: check for element
    >>> names defined in HTML but no in WOD, check for element names
    >>> defined in WOD but not in HTML, check for duplicate definition of
    >>> element names in WOD, check for duplicate definition of binding
    >>> names, check for existence of type names + that it is instanceof
    >>> WOElement, and the usual check for proper syntax.
    >>>
    >>> I don't do API binding validation yet. I can't recall if I asked
    >>> this before, but if you have an API file that defines bindings,
    >>> can you ONLY bind to something defined in the API file or is it
    >>> the usual get/set methods PLUS the bindings defined in the API file?
    >>>
    >>> And I'm still working the kinks out of the error checking --
    >>> occasionally I manage to get it to freak out a little (I think
    >>> there a certain case where the parser gets greedy and one of the
    >>> rules gobbles up an extra character at the end, which throws
    >>> everything off), but I haven't nailed down the actual repeatable
    >>> scenario that causes it. If you happen to see it and can figure
    >>> out what causes a repeatable case, let me know.
    >>>
    >>> WOD error checking still is not hooked up to a builder, so you
    >>> only see errors for files that you have opened. Incidentally,
    >>> would people LIKE it to be a builder? The downside is obviously
    >>> that the time to do a build increases. Going forward, any new
    >>> file you make will have the incremental error checking, so this
    >>> is really only an issue for finding errors in existing projects.
    >>>
    >>> ms
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 20:16:12 EDT