[jboss-cvs] Re: jboss-cvs-commits Digest, Vol 37, Issue 197

[Ales Justin]

2x true.

But I still like the consistency with isX on primitives. :-)

Scott Stark wrote:
> The problem with "is" style getters is that it only applies to the 
> primitive boolean type.
> 
> Boolean isX()
> void setX(Boolean x)
> 
> does not define a read-write property X of type Boolean. This has burned 
> me in setup of some management views where a property shows up with no 
> read based on the mc BeanInfo. I personally like get/set as it has no 
> such inconsistency.
> 
> Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> If you prefer "is" I'll gladly change it. I'm curious why you care 
>> though; does the MC handle "is" more cleanly?
>>
>> Regarding the javabeans spec, the only preference for "is" is that if 
>> "is" and "get" both exist for a property, the property is read via "is".
>>
>> 8.3 Design Patterns for Properties
>>   8.3.1  Simple properties
>>          By default, we use design patterns to locate properties by 
>> looking for methods of the form:
>>             public <PropertyType> get<PropertyName>();
>>             public void set<PropertyName>(<PropertyType> a);
>>
>> .....
>>
>>    8.3.2 Boolean properties
>>          In addition, for boolean properties, we allow a getter method 
>> to match the pattern:
>>              public boolean is<PropertyName>();
>>          This “is<PropertyName>” method may be provided instead of a 
>> “get<PropertyName>” method, or it may be provided in addition to a 
>> “get<PropertyName>” method.
>>
>>          In either case, if the “is<PropertyName>” method is present 
>> for a boolean property then we will use the “is<PropertyName>” method 
>> to read the property value.
>>
>>
>> Ales Justin wrote:
>>> Why is this not isOverrideDistributableManager(), as per javabeans?
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>