Does Eclipse 3.3 support changing the default signature for getters/
setters? I much prefer the WO Way [ varname()/setVarname() ] vs. the
Java Way. I know it is not possible with 3.2, or else Mike would have
done it already.
Tobias
On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:21 AM, Ian Joyner wrote:
> Anyway, a project with private and protected fields and lots of
> errors in the .wod files will still run OK. If you consider that
> the .wod spec is tightly bound to the class, you are not really
> breaking encapsulation, because you might still want to hide those
> fields from other classes. Thus fix from Mike will be appreciated –
> I don't like ignoring errors because there might be a real one in
> there. (So much for '()' breaking encapsulation and exposing
> implementation!)
>
> Ian
>
> On 03/07/2007, at 10:47 AM, Ian Joyner wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--- Tobias Crawley tobia..luecollarsoftware.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jul 03 2007 - 06:48:51 EDT