On 05/06/2008, at 2:02 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Marc Palmer schrieb:
Hi,
Should setter overloading work?
I'm extending a java class that provides:
void setDuration(Duration d) { .. }
...in my groovy class extending it:
class EnhancediTunesEntryInformationImpl extends
EntryInformationImpl {
void setDuration(String s) {
super.setDuration(new Duration(s))
}
}
...this fails with groovy complaining that it cannot cast the
string to Duration. If I change my setter to:
void setDurationText(String s) {
super.setDuration(new Duration(s))
}
it works fine.
So... should overloaded setters resolve with property access or
not? I'm just trying to establish whether or not there is a bug to
isolate here.
The problem here is the bean specification. remember that when you
do foo.duration = "...", then you try to set a property named
duration with a string. Now the Bean spec knows only one setter and
getter. And since you do overload and not overwrite you end up with
two of them. That's a problem since Groovy expects, according to the
spec, only of them. If you do foo.setDuration(""), then there
shouldn't be a problem at all.
It's not clear from your statements Jochen whether this is something
that doesn't work now and may in the future, or for some technical
reason can never work. In my opinion, this _is_ an issue as it is not
what you would expect. It's reasonable to assume that setting a
property like this would call the right setter. This assumption caused
a bug for me that was very nasty and hard to track down.
If it's something that just doesn't work now please say so so a ticket
can be raised.
LD.
15 messages in org.codehaus.groovy.userRe: [groovy-user] Setter overloading ...
