Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
From: "Musall, Maik" <maik@selbstdenker.ag>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Allowing property getters without a "get" prefix on DataObjects
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:02:57 +0200
References: <E1534967-5564-4732-8201-BCDDDB7F25C2@karlmenn.is>
 <CAOy5kzODN+1DROYwqsVKSCDsgPt9pp3ciHdQ5JGkqwnqhmcPng@mail.gmail.com>
 <8A42EBEE-E852-47C0-8FC5-D77FABE588EC@karlmenn.is>
To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <8A42EBEE-E852-47C0-8FC5-D77FABE588EC@karlmenn.is>
Message-Id: <669DEF70-C747-4A78-9458-5FF17E009299@selbstdenker.ag>
archived-at: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:03:14 -0000

+1 :-)

> Am 26.09.2017 um 15:32 schrieb Hugi Thordarson <hugi@karlmenn.is>:
>=20
> Hi Michael,
>=20
> thanks for an honest attempt to convince me. Hard sell, though. :)
>=20
> I use a lot of 3rd party libraries and I've only hit one time where =
using the bean spec was necessary =E2=80=94 JasperReports. That was =
easily fixed by providing *BeanInfo classes, in accordance with the Bean =
spec. But Cayenne doesn't really follow the Java Bean Spec, it just =
hardcodes "is", "get" and "set".
>=20
> As for the Eclipse thing=E2=80=A6 Well. A standard DataObject already =
has five methods prefixed with "get" so that list is questionable. And I =
don't miss this functionality.
>=20
> I think it's important to note that the change I'm proposing would not =
affect those who choose to add the prefix. It just accommodates those of =
us who choose not to, thus expanding the audience of the framework.
>=20
> Cheers,
> - hugi
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On 26 Sep 2017, at 12:01, Michael Gentry <blacknext@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi Hugi,
>>=20
>> Let me try to sell you on the "get" prefix.  :-)
>>=20
>> (I did a lot of WebObjects/EOF in the past, in Objective-C and Java, =
so I
>> understand the reluctance.)
>>=20
>> * The "get" prefix is part of the JavaBeans standard/contract.  With =
the
>> exception of "is" for booleans (with a little "b").
>>=20
>> * There are tons of Java frameworks out there that expect and utilize =
the
>> JavaBeans contract, so it is great for folding external frameworks =
into
>> your code.  Or folding Cayenne into other frameworks, such as =
Tapestry.  I
>> can specify Cayenne object/relationship paths in Tapestry (and other
>> frameworks) such as
>> =
t:value=3D"currentItem.resourceSummary.grossCost.costs.continuingFootnote"=

>> (real example).  Since Tapestry expects the JavaBeans contract and =
Cayenne
>> provides it, this works flawlessly.
>>=20
>> * In Eclipse (and others, I'm sure) I can do anObject.get[pause or
>> control-space] and see all the getters associated with that object.
>> Without the get prefix, they are spread out a-z and therefore you =
can't get
>> as concise a list.
>>=20
>> mrg
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Hugi Thordarson <hugi@karlmenn.is> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hi all
>>>=20
>>> Touching on an old subject that has now become more important with
>>> field-based Data Objects.
>>>=20
>>> All of my DataObjects use accessor methods without the "get"-prefix. =
This
>>> was fine with Map Based data objects (where a MapAccessor would get
>>> property values by name), but now that my objects are field based, =
along
>>> comes BeanAccessor which is hardcoded to have every getter prefixed.
>>>=20
>>> I propose that BeanAccessor be modified to allow accessor methods =
without
>>> the "get"-prefix. Methods with "get" would get precedence, but if no =
method
>>> with a "get"-prefix exists, check for the existence of a method with =
only
>>> the property name.
>>>=20
>>> Although it's a minimal change in code, I realise it comes with a =
bit of
>>> potential baggage WRT testing. But this is not just to scratch a =
personal
>>> itch; once Cayenne 4.0 is out I want to start a large scale =
introduction of
>>> Cayenne to the EOF world where the get prefix is generally not liked =
and
>>> this change would have a big appeal. Besides, I'm not a big fan of =
the
>>> get-prefix myself, I find it a bit redundant :).
>>>=20
>>> An alternative would be to adhere to the Bean standard, and make
>>> BeanAccessor read bean meta information (usually specified in =
*BeanInfo
>>> classes) and get names of getter/setter methods from there. But that =
would
>>> be a much larger change than just checking for a method with =
propertyName
>>> if the getPropertyName method doesn't exist.
>>>=20
>>> What do you think?
>>>=20
>>> Cheers,
>>> - hugi
>=20