From: Sven V. <ski...@ko...> - 2005-12-16 23:49:31
|
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:27:43PM -0500, Toby Ho wrote: > I only planned to support them. I could extend it to > handle fields as well, but we might run into issues if for example > what if both the JavaBean and field is present? Which one should JYaml > read from/write to? It could be even worst if the setter or getter > does something funky before it sets the field value, if it actually > sets it at all. What are your thoughts? Well, let me tell you a small story first. I'm not really too fond of java as a programming language. Give me C (or maybe C++) any day. The thing is I have some data that I'd like to communicate to a java program. Since I use a yaml file to communicate the same data between my C and perl programs, I thought I'd just read in the yaml data into a minimal data structure that corresponds to (parts) of the yaml file and then convert this data in java to the actual data structures of the program. I was delighted to see that someone had been working on a java yaml tool, but it doesn't seem to do quite what I'd like it to do (yet). Personally I don't like this insistence on getters and setters at all. They're nice if some of your fields are connected in some class invariant, but otherwise I don't really see the point. So, if would be very nice if you would support setting field directly, as an option maybe. I can see that it could be problematic to support this by default, especially on writing since you wouldn't know which field are already covered by a getter. Then again, can't you just check for _public_ fields ? Surely if you have a getter and setter for a field, then that field _isn't_ public, right ? skimo |