ibatis-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Poitras Christian" <Christian.Poit...@ircm.qc.ca>
Subject RE: Direct-to-Field mappings now implemented.
Date Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:01 GMT
I guess you have a point.
Probably 90% of developpers won't want to know how the real path used...
Even if knowing it is interesting, it might disapoint people to force
them to know it in advance.
In other cases, getters may include code that will be skipped using
direct field access.
Now the point to this email is that iBATIS didn't force people to have
an idea of the implementation before writting xml files. Changing this
habit may reduce the interest of iBATIS as a simple tool for O/R
Personally, I am afraid of the reactions some people will have when
they'll begin mixing beans, pojos and maps (all 3 for crazy people
only!, but most pojos/maps users).
Another problem will arise with resultMaps that will need this notation
at the same time (to know if we call a setter or a use the field).
I personally think it is to late to force people to change their iBATIS
habit. But make sure that they'll know what the framework will do. For
instance calling the getter if present, if not accessing the field
Maybe the notation can be optionnal and will force iBATIS to try
accessing the field first, then the getter if field is not present.
Think this would do?


From: paulus.benedictus@gmail.com [mailto:paulus.benedictus@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
Sent: Friday, 09 February 2007 15:17
To: dev@ibatis.apache.org
Subject: Re: Direct-to-Field mappings now implemented.

Poitras and Clinton,

I agree. The refactoring argument is pretty strong. Property notation is
script-like because the actual means to get to the value (method vs.
direct-field access) is totally secondary to the intention. The
developer just needs to express the path, and the framework should be
intelligent enough to get there. But we can't assume the developer
always wants direct-field access, which is why the option must be turned

PS: -1 on the brackets.


View raw message