PROPOSAL: Lightweight Properties

[Marek Kozieł]

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/