[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: JAVA-17: Proposed resolution
The resolution of JAVA-55 has clarified the rules for which setter methods are taken into account when introspecting for properties and references. The relevant text is as follows: The following setter methods and fields are taken into consideration: 1. Public setter methods that are not part of the implementation of an SCA service (either explicitly marked with @Service or implicitly defined as described above) 2. Public or protected fields unless there is a public setter method for the same name Point 1 above makes it clear that the "setX" examples given in the JIRA are not properties or references. The JIRA also raises the following question. "Another question would be: Is it valid to have a setter method denote both a property/reference and business operation?" For introspected properties and references, the text in point 1 above rules out this possibility. However, the possibility does exist for properties and references specified by explicit annotations, for example: public class MyServiceImpl implements MyService { @Property public void setX(String x) { ... } } @Remotable public interface MyService { void setX(String x); } I believe this could be useful in some cases and should not be disallowed. I therefore propose that this issue should be closed as having been resolved by JAVA-55. Simon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]