Re: [ANN] WO/WOLips/Wonder intro screencast
Re: [ANN] WO/WOLips/Wonder intro screencast
- Subject: Re: [ANN] WO/WOLips/Wonder intro screencast
- From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:11:46 -0700
On Mar 21, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Louis Demers wrote:
On 21-Mar-08, at 00:46 , Lachlan Deck wrote:
* probably helpful to explain why you're making the ivars public
(i.e., in the absence of getter/setters)
not to start another philosophical debate... but I always get a
guilty feeling if I declare them public instead of private with
getters/setters. But when I review the code of my many components,
the majority of the code is just these getters/setters and I never
used them to do any thing else because I get that feeling that too
is not recommended.
My own philosophy (from my ObjC/C/Asm background) is, the less
code, the fewer bugs. The getters/setters certainly aren't buggy but
they crowd the code files.
What would be compelling reasons in Java (within the context of WO
dev) not to go with public declarations ? What do you advise when
doing WO/WOnder development ?
My rule is this: If the Java code for the component refers to the
variables, I make getters and setters and use them in the code. If
the variable is only referred to in bindings, I make it public. This
ties in with my other rule: only constructors, getters, and setters
may access a variable directly. All other uses refer to the getter
(accessor). And the constructor is only allowed to do that if there
is no setter method.
Chuck
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden