True, but even if one was only able to remove 10% of the getters and setters, wouldn't it be worth it ?
I think the Tapestry 5 way of doing thing is great, practically everything is JAVA code. But, this also obviously means, more JAVA code. So, Tapestry should also help the developer keep that code as clean as possible. I think a @GenerateAccessors or whatever name it would have would be a great addition to the framework. Howard Lewis Ship wrote: > I've thought about adding an @Accessible or @GenerateAccessors > annotation that would create the getter and setter automatically. > However, that gets in the way of testablility ... for testing > purposes, you are likely to have those getter and setter methods > anyway. > > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This is a really cool feature in T4, but it's not present in T5. I'm >> finding that my classes are getting filled with getters and setters when >> they could easily (i think) be generated at runtime just like in T4. >> >> Is this by design or is it just a missing feature that will be >> implemented in the future ? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > > > >
