PROPOSAL: Lightweight Properties (original) (raw)

Marek Kozieł develop4lasu at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 08:41:02 PST 2009

2009/3/5 David Goodenough <david.goodenough at linkchoose.co.uk>

Rienier,

Yes I know that Fields have Generics information available, but they are not used in the declaration of a Field object, and so the getter and setter to the value of the field are NOT typed, and thus can not be checked by the compiler/IDE. I do not have the knowledge to add this to the compiler, and the only documentation I have found for adding things to the compiler (as I have already mentioned) did not help - it only talked about adding operators to the compiler. The compiler is not exactly well documented or if it is, Google has been unable to furnish the right documents. The reason that it is needed is very simple. One of the big strengths of Java is that compilers and IDEs can do a really good job of detecting errors, and in the case of IDEs making suggestions as to what can come next. Using String field names in places like Bean Binding frameworks and API approaches to SQL and friends (like the JPA Criteria API) drives a coach and horses through that strength. For that reason, and the fact that this is a VERY simple suggestion, this proposal should be given serious consideration. Now if there people out there with the knowledge to help me get started in understanding what needs to be changed in Javac (I tried Remi Forax as he had already worked in this area, but he was too busy to help when I asked) I am more than happy to try to produce a working javac. But simply jumping into the source from scratch is unlikely to produce a good solution. So perhaps rather than spending our time throwing out reasons why this can not be done, lets try to work together to find a way in which is can be done. David On Thursday 05 March 2009, you wrote: > I think you'll need to spend some more time getting familiar with the > JLS. > > For example, Field objects DO have generics information. That's what > Field.getGenericType() is for. > > I -really- doubt you'll get anywhere with your proposal unless you do > both of the following: > > - impress everybody with an exceedingly complete proposal along with > a prototype implementation of javac. Which is going to take a lot more > working knowledge of the JLS and how javac parses source files than > you currently have. > > - either a grassroots campaign of many java programmers that > vindicates your insinuation that properties are so important, they > need to be added to java7, even with this bandaid solution, or > alternatively, convince a number of property evangelising people in > the java community to openly speak in favour of this proposal. > > I imagine that's going to cost you a week or 5 at the very least of > your time, including getting more familiar with the JLS. March is > going to be over by then. > > --Reinier Zwitserloot >

I do not see the problem you have.

If you have 'static' name of field (only then compiler can check it) then you can simply use field.

If u do not have that information (it's dynamic) then also compiler is unable to determine it's type before execution.

That why I do not see why we need any other solution than linking 'Fields' with fields to make it refactor friendly and easy to use.

Am I wrong?

-- Pozdrowionka. / Regards. Lasu aka Marek Kozieł

http://lasu2string.blogspot.com/

More information about the coin-dev mailing list