On 8/5/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 08:13 -0600, Larry Meadors wrote:
>
> >
> > Who cares? is opacity not the point of Object Oriented-ness?
> >
>
> maybe. But code readability is the more important feature :-)
>
> leon
Agreed, and IMO, the C# version is
On 8/5/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 08:13 -0600, Larry Meadors wrote:
>
> >
> > Who cares? is opacity not the point of Object Oriented-ness?
> >
>
> maybe. But code readability is the more important feature :-)
>
> leon
Agreed, and IMO, the C# version is
Agreed.
/me shudders...
Larry
On 8/5/05, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Perry wrote:
>
> >you can do that without the getter/setter in java as MyProperty is public.
> >
> >
> Public properties--now _that_ is evil!
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> --
On 8/5/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 17:05 -0700, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> > You mean, separate view from the business object, not from the data?
> > ;-) Anyway, I am not sure that this separation is needed, unless view
> > layer is developed by an evil thi
Daniel Perry wrote:
you can do that without the getter/setter in java as MyProperty is public.
Public properties--now _that_ is evil!
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMA
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 08:13 -0600, Larry Meadors wrote:
Who cares? is opacity not the point of Object Oriented-ness?
maybe. But code readability is the more important feature :-)
If I'm reading the code and see a property access all I need to know is
that I'm acce
I would personally tend to agree the C# syntax is cleaner... but I don't
think the difference is all that big frankly and it probably comes down to
a matter of developer proference rather than what's actually "better" in
some way.
They both functionally *DO* the same thing though... your executing
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 08:13 -0600, Larry Meadors wrote:
>
> Who cares? is opacity not the point of Object Oriented-ness?
>
maybe. But code readability is the more important feature :-)
leon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On 8/5/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:18 -0600, Larry Meadors wrote:
> > You don't see it?!? Have you looked?
> >
> > As a self-professed Java bigot, I will readily admit that C# has a
> > *way* better sytax for defining and using properties that I wish Jav
eh? you can do that without the getter/setter in java as MyProperty is
public.
Daniel.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Meadors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 05 August 2005 14:18
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [OT] DTOs are evil
>
>
> You
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:18 -0600, Larry Meadors wrote:
> You don't see it?!? Have you looked?
>
> As a self-professed Java bigot, I will readily admit that C# has a
> *way* better sytax for defining and using properties that I wish Java
> would implement (or even better - improve upon).
>
> publ
You don't see it?!? Have you looked?
As a self-professed Java bigot, I will readily admit that C# has a
*way* better sytax for defining and using properties that I wish Java
would implement (or even better - improve upon).
public string MyProperty {
get { return myProperty; }
set
P.S. By the way, Rod Johnson also said persistent objects that contain only
getters and setters are evil too (same page as dto, 27). In my understanding
it means hibernate and ibatis which use such objects are at least as evil?
How are you supposed to represent data anyway then?
the issue is not
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 17:05 -0700, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Each software system (which is large enough...) has more then one layer.
> > Different layers usually handles same data. Each of the layers has ist own
> > view on the data. The bu
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. This is evil. I take that you have
not used Object Pascal?
I've actually seen it, although I can't say I've personally used it.
property MaxLength: Integer read FMaxLength write SetMaxLength default 0;
There's nothing to stop you
On 8/4/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> > If getters and setters do nothing more than simply read field or set
> > field, then they are evil, you do not need Rod Johnson to tell you
> > that ;)
>
> I think I may... why exactly is this evil?
>
> We're t
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
If getters and setters do nothing more than simply read field or set
field, then they are evil, you do not need Rod Johnson to tell you
that ;)
I think I may... why exactly is this evil?
We're talking, at the most basic level, about a construct that
encapsulates prop
On 8/4/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Each software system (which is large enough...) has more then one layer.
> Different layers usually handles same data. Each of the layers has ist own
> view on the data. The business layer, which has to calculate the salary of
> an employee is
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Michael Jouravlev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. August 2005 23:27
> An: Struts Users Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: DTOs are evil
> So, DTOs are useful where:
> * model was done incorrectly
> * in cases of really severe bandwidth co
19 matches
Mail list logo
