They do, but what the hell. I think we have reached a level of
sophistication (pronounced no dumb people on the team) where this should no
longer be a problem. I really haven't seen validation code in a setter
method anyway. They are usually generated as:
public void setFoo(String foo){
I think they still have to be public, but I don't really remember anymore.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM, wrote:
> No schit! Going to try it now.
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dave Newton
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, wrote:
> >
> > > I have always thought the para
No schit! Going to try it now.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dave Newton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, wrote:
>
> > I have always thought the parameters interceptor should reflect on object
> > properties in the case where it could
> > not find a set/get method.
> >
>
> Properti
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, wrote:
> I have always thought the parameters interceptor should reflect on object
> properties in the case where it could
> not find a set/get method.
>
Properties haven't needed setters since ~2.1, give or take. I don't know if
that was an OGNL change or an S2
Actually, it shouldn't come down to using the *other* because the
*one*doesn't support one neat feature. I have always thought the
parameters
interceptor should reflect on object properties in the case where it could
not find a set/get method. These determinations could be cached. Dave, can
you
It does appear to be an interesting way of doing it and it would
certainly help on action class bloat, especially on actions where a form
may contain lots of parameters.
In some places we've actually reverted to a hack concept of ActionForms
where our web page contains "class.property" variables
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Frans Thamura wrote:
> any one look this
>
> http://www.playframework.org/
>
> will this feature inside S2
>
Why bother? Use one or the other.
Dave
thx
that is the idea of my thread ;)
thx :)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Felipe Lorenz wrote:
> I like it.
>
> It has some fast way to create pages.
>
> And I really enjoy the possibility to pass params directly to a method,
> without getters & setters. It can be new feature to S2! Helps
I like it.
It has some fast way to create pages.
And I really enjoy the possibility to pass params directly to a method,
without getters & setters. It can be new feature to S2! Helps to keep the
Action class clean!
See you!
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Frans Thamura wrote:
> any one look
i know appfuse, but the real live concept is good
am i post in wrong mailing list ?
F
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara <
maurizio.cucchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like you want a car inside the engine.
> I take a quick look at the first 3 minutes of video: Controller and
Looks like you want a car inside the engine.
I take a quick look at the first 3 minutes of video: Controller and
Model class seem to be a hierarchy-killer.
Do you know appfuse [1]? though I prefer grails [2]
[1] http://appfuse.org/display/APF/Home
[2] http://www.grails.org/
2010/12/10 Frans Thamu
any one look this
http://www.playframework.org/
will this feature inside S2
F
12 matches
Mail list logo
