Thx Taha!
That's exactly what I did to come around it. But if both annotations are
mutally exclusive shouldn't the framework give a warning or simply fail
like it does when having a setter and a property which forces the setter
creation? Just treating a setter as non-existing...I don't know if this
is a perfect solution even I understand the technical reason behind it
now ;-)
Jens
Am 29.08.11 15:14, schrieb Taha Hafeez:
@Parameters do not use setters. They create a conduit to set/get the
values directly , so setters are never used.
You can look at the code of ParameterWorker for details
you can always use setupRender to setup things
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Jens Breitenstein<mailingl...@j-b-s.de> wrote:
Hi All!
I tried to use a combination of @Property and @Parameter.
@Property(read = true, write = false)
@Parameter(required = true)
private String _myParam;
unfortunately it seems to be impossible to "intercept" a set in such a case
// ---->> NEVER CALLED
public void String setMyParam(final String param)
{
_myParam = param;
// do more...
}
Is there any reason this is not allowed?
Jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
