| Subject: | Re: Functional Requirements Document | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Craig R. McClanahan (Crai...@eng.sun.com) | |
| Date: | Jan 22, 2001 10:16:08 am | |
| List: | org.apache.ant.dev | |
Refine Search
| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Siberski, Wolf | Jan 15, 2001 1:52 pm | .html |
| Jon Stevens | Jan 15, 2001 1:56 pm | |
| Peter Donald | Jan 16, 2001 5:43 am | |
| James Cook | Jan 16, 2001 5:56 am | |
| Jon Stevens | Jan 16, 2001 9:44 am | |
| James Cook | Jan 20, 2001 10:51 am | |
| Peter Donald | Jan 20, 2001 5:09 pm | |
| James Cook | Jan 20, 2001 7:51 pm | |
| Stefan Bodewig | Jan 22, 2001 1:59 am | |
| Craig R. McClanahan | Jan 22, 2001 10:16 am |
| Subject: | Re: Functional Requirements Document | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Craig R. McClanahan (Crai...@eng.sun.com) | |
| Date: | Jan 22, 2001 10:16:08 am | |
| List: | org.apache.ant.dev | |
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
James Cook <jimc...@iname.com> wrote:
[snip]
2. A Task must identify the name of all modifiable properties.
As you point out, this is already possible via "all methods following our naming convention represent attributes/nested elements" - and there even are support methods in IntrospectionHelper to aid external tools.
But sometimes one might pick up false positives (setUserProperty in Property being something that shouldn't lead to an attribute for example). So in principle I agree.
One option to consider here is the way that JavaBeans deal with the "false positives" issue. If you also include a BeanInfo class, you can customize the set of properties that is made visible (and even adapt to different method names). The introspector knows how to deal with this for you, so it might be pretty cheap to implement.
Craig McClanahan

