On 03/07/2007, at 10:19 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
> Well, if you fix it, please do it _after_ you write the new
> WOBuilder. ;)
Nah, let him fix it now ;-) Just think if C-based languages didn't
have that wacky '()' function call syntax, you wouldn't need getters
at all!
Ian
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>
>> It's a wolips bug for a particular case that eclipse people don't
>> tend to run into, but wobuilder people do because wob generated
>> kind of crappy java. I was not planning on fixing it, but I think
>> I may just because it's only going to become more common as more
>> people make the jump.
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 6:22 PM, David Avendasora
>> <webobject..vendasora.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, believe me, I don't want to change them to public, I'm just
>>> trying to figure out why Eclipse (WOLips?) is complaining about
>>> them being protected, when WOBuilder never did. I didn't know if
>>> there was some configuration within Eclipse/WoLips that would
>>> tell it that it was okay and not an error, or if I had somehow
>>> set it up incorrectly.
>>>
>>> But it sounds like what is being said is that to make it (the
>>> error flag) go away, you have to add public getters and setters,
>>> right? I know it's easy in Eclipse, just wondering if that's the
>>> right route.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Janine Sisk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:35 PM, David Avendasora wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem I'm running into is that almost all the attributes
>>>>> that
>>>>> were setup in WOBuilder are "protected", and now Eclipse is
>>>>> reporting
>>>>> that the attributes don't exist. If I mark them as "public"
>>>>> then the
>>>>> problem goes away.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the proper way to handle this?
>>>>
>>>> I'm feeling an urge to channel Chuck....
>>>>
>>>> He has taught me, forcefully :), that the right thing to do is
>>>> to leave these protected and write getter and setter methods for
>>>> them. Yes, it's kind of a pain. But he says that this protects
>>>> you in the future; if you end up actually needing to use an
>>>> accessor method then you can just modify the one that's already
>>>> there instead of trying to track down all the places you
>>>> accessed the variable directly. It's also better if you need to
>>>> subclass in the future, I imagine for the same reason.
>>>>
>>>> It's not quite as much work as it sounds; if your variable is
>>>> named foo, and your getter and setter are foo() and setFoo()
>>>> respectively, WO will find and use them automatically. So you
>>>> don't have to change your bindings.
>>>>
>>>> janine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Jul 02 2007 - 20:48:12 EDT