-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add @Data.NoGetter and @Data.NoSetter Annotations and behavior #110
Comments
👤 gerhard.balthasar 🕗 Aug 24, 2009 at 18:24 UTC As discussed here: Excerpts: @ Getter and @ Setter
Eh. Feels like too many annotations to me. I could extend AccessLevel BTW, working with EJBs and JaxB I have transient fields quite often.
normaly transient fields need access methods also. Conclusion: Bad. What's left then? Changing the behaviour of @ Datas Setter/Getter creation would be an
In other words: create only the method type that is declared, but Would this solve the problem? It might be acceptable if @ NoSetter and @ NoGetter become sub- public @ interface Data { } That seems a fair compromise between sticking too much crud in the Yes, sure, it's a good compromise. Ticket is on in some minutes. So we will get this situations with @ Data and a field foo:
@ Setter(AccessLevel.PROTECTED) private Object foo;
@ NoGetter private Object foo;
@ NoSetter @ NoGetter private Object foo; Seems acceptable for me, it's just a decent declarative clutter,
So, if you're not convinced by the transient field solution, I'll go |
👤 reinierz 🕗 Sep 01, 2009 at 22:58 UTC |
👤 r.spilker 🕗 Sep 02, 2009 at 08:33 UTC If we implement NoGetter and NoSetter as an annotation, we also need to check when Introducing a AccesLevel.DONTGENERATE (or AccessLevel.NONE) would solve this problem. I'm not particular fond of either. |
👤 reinierz 🕗 Sep 03, 2009 at 00:24 UTC Added in commit b262ed9 and will be rolled out in v0.8.5. We've decided to go with a new accesslevel instead, so: @ Data public class Foo { this was waaay simpler than adding new annotations, and there's a (admittedly somewhat tedious) argument |
👤 reinierz 🕗 Oct 16, 2009 at 08:54 UTC |
End of migration |
Migrated from Google Code (issue 37)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: