Well, I'm not totally convinced. I think it's too kludgy to be forced to write a setupRender() and a test against null/0/false just to initialize a member.
There must be a simpler way... Perhaps a field-level annotation? Olle 2008/12/16 Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <thiag...@gmail.com> > Em Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:32:00 -0300, Olle Hallin <olle.hal...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > You're correct about static final. Didn't think of that [?]. >> > > Sometimes a good solution is so simple that we try the complex ones first. > :P > > Why is it prohibited to initialize rowsPerPage in the declaration? An int >> is definitely immutable. It's not even an object... >> > > Tapestry polls pages. When it needs one instance, it would need to know if > it is a never used one or a used one and initialize it accordingly. How > would Tapestry know that, as primitives do not accept null values? > > AFAIK, the Tapestry philosphy is to have just one way to do things. > Accepting initialization of primitive fiels and not acception other fields > would not fit. ;) > > Nice discussion. :) > > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Independent Java consultant, developer, and instructor > http://www.arsmachina.com.br/thiago > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > > -- Olle Hallin Senior Java Developer and Architect olle.hal...@crisp.se www.crisp.se
