If there's no compile errors then it should not require any tests. On 10/10/13 8:02 AM, "SuichII, Christopher" <chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote:
>I went ahead and removed all setters from *JoinVOs this morning and >played around in my environment. There were no compile errors since >nobody called those setters, everything seems to be working just fine and >there aren't any errors in any of the logs. > >Does anyone have any suggestions on how to properly test this? I can't >imagine we're using Java reflection somewhere to actually invoke the >setter for a given field. Other than that, with no compile errors, I >don't see this causing any issues. > >-Chris >-- >Chris Suich >chris.su...@netapp.com >NetApp Software Engineer >Data Center Platforms Cloud Solutions >Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat > >On Oct 10, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Koushik Das <koushik....@citrix.com> wrote: > >> Views are meant to be read only. So +1 for removing setters. >> >> On 04-Oct-2013, at 10:59 PM, "SuichII, Christopher" >><chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote: >> >>> *JoinVOs are used to store entries from MySQL views, which are not >>>editable. I think removing setters from the *JoinVOs may help avoid >>>some potential confusion as setters seem to imply that the fields are >>>editable, which they really aren't. >>> >>> I started looking around and it looks like most setters in *JoinVOs >>>aren't actually used since the creation of *VOs is handled by java >>>reflection. Please let me know if this is not the case or if I'm >>>misunderstanding the way the MySQL views work. >>> >>> -Chris >>> -- >>> Chris Suich >>> chris.su...@netapp.com >>> NetApp Software Engineer >>> Data Center Platforms Cloud Solutions >>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat >>> >> >
