cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is>
Subject Re: Allowing property getters without a "get" prefix on DataObjects
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:11:46 GMT
Hi Andrus, and y'all.

I've been looking into this and it seems like a rather large change to allow something relatively
simple (allowing DataObjects to have accessor methods that don't start with a "get"-prefix).

Would people be diametrically opposed to just changing BeanAccessor so that it seeks for a
non-prefixed method if a prefixed one isn't found? That modification is minimal and shouldn't
affect any current users, so I can think of.

Cheers,
- hugi



> On 20 Sep 2018, at 16:08, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Maik,
> 
> In Cayenne a canonical way to override services is via DI. A PR that follows that approach
has a good chance of acceptance. 
> 
> From a quick glance, I wonder if this new DI endpoint should be a factory of ClassDescriptorMap
(which is currently lazily created inside EntityResolver). We can't make ClassDescriptorMap
itself DI-managed as it depends on the mapping state, but a factory for it can be a DI singleton.
Inside your custom factory (a few levels down actually) you can provide a subclass of BeanAccessor
(maybe also via its own DI factory?).
> 
> Andrus
> 
> 
>> On Sep 19, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Maik Musall <maik@selbstdenker.ag> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I'd like to pull up this discussion from one year ago again. I'm currently running
4.0 and testing upgrading to 4.1 using field-based DataObjects, and I'm hitting the hard-coded
prefixes in BeanAccessor that prevent me from proceeding.
>> 
>> Yes, in theory I could sigh, yield, and use "get" prefixes, but not only do I dislike
introducing the "get" boilerplate everywhere. I am also somewhat reluctant to make a refactoring
touching some 800+ files in my project. To be honest, I'd rather patch BeanAccessor to personal
taste and deal with the consequences.
>> 
>> BeanAccessor is currently always called by it's constructor. In addition to the options
Hugi described in his original mail in this thread, I could also imagine a way to modify this
to be able to inject a custom Accessor implementation as an alternative. What do you think?
>> 
>> And… what would happen if someone would submit a pull request actually implementing
one of these options? :-)
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Maik
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 26.09.2017 um 15:32 schrieb Hugi Thordarson <hugi@karlmenn.is>:
>>> 
>>> Hi Michael,
>>> 
>>> thanks for an honest attempt to convince me. Hard sell, though. :)
>>> 
>>> I use a lot of 3rd party libraries and I've only hit one time where using the
bean spec was necessary — 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".
>>> 
>>> As for the Eclipse thing… Well. A standard DataObject already has five methods
prefixed with "get" so that list is questionable. And I don't miss this functionality.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> - hugi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 26 Sep 2017, at 12:01, Michael Gentry <blacknext@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Hugi,
>>>> 
>>>> Let me try to sell you on the "get" prefix.  :-)
>>>> 
>>>> (I did a lot of WebObjects/EOF in the past, in Objective-C and Java, so I
>>>> understand the reluctance.)
>>>> 
>>>> * The "get" prefix is part of the JavaBeans standard/contract.  With the
>>>> exception of "is" for booleans (with a little "b").
>>>> 
>>>> * 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="currentItem.resourceSummary.grossCost.costs.continuingFootnote"
>>>> (real example).  Since Tapestry expects the JavaBeans contract and Cayenne
>>>> provides it, this works flawlessly.
>>>> 
>>>> * 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.
>>>> 
>>>> mrg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Hugi Thordarson <hugi@karlmenn.is>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>> 
>>>>> Touching on an old subject that has now become more important with
>>>>> field-based Data Objects.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 :).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> - hugi
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message