#632 Generate CMP field problem

When using EJB CMP 2.0:

Only ejb-jar.xml file gets modified when both "Generate getter/setter in
Local interface" options are turned off.
I expected that both get/set methods should have been generated in the
implementation class. It works correctly when these both options are turned
on.

/kesh


4 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Hello Kesh,
What's the point of having CMP field accessors in EJB class when nobody will
be able to use them via interface ?

Everybody, please comment whether using CMP field from inside EJB class only
is so popular pattern.
If it's the case, I can add 'Generate CMP field getter/setter in EJB Class'
checkboxes in 'Add CMP field' dialog.
--
regards,
Alexey Kudravtsev.
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"kesh" <kesha@cosite.com> wrote in message
news:afq8m1$lit$1@is.intellij.net...

When using EJB CMP 2.0:

>

Only ejb-jar.xml file gets modified when both "Generate getter/setter in
Local interface" options are turned off.
I expected that both get/set methods should have been generated in the
implementation class. It works correctly when these both options are

turned

on.

>

/kesh

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

getters/setters methods of the cmd fields are abstract methods and they
cannot be amended with additional logic by, for example, overriding them. So
sometimes exposing getters/setters through the local interface makes
incapsulation level of your ejb unexeptably poor. In my team we prefer to
use Domain Value Object pattern for any updates of ejb's fields, so we are
not exposing getters/setters through the local interface.

/kesh

"Alexey Kudravtsev" <cdr@intellij.com> wrote in message
news:afrplf$qug$1@is.intellij.net...

Hello Kesh,
What's the point of having CMP field accessors in EJB class when nobody

will

be able to use them via interface ?

>

Everybody, please comment whether using CMP field from inside EJB class

only

is so popular pattern.
If it's the case, I can add 'Generate CMP field getter/setter in EJB

Class'

checkboxes in 'Add CMP field' dialog.
--
regards,
Alexey Kudravtsev.
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

>
>

"kesh" <kesha@cosite.com> wrote in message
news:afq8m1$lit$1@is.intellij.net...

When using EJB CMP 2.0:

>

Only ejb-jar.xml file gets modified when both "Generate getter/setter in
Local interface" options are turned off.
I expected that both get/set methods should have been generated in the
implementation class. It works correctly when these both options are

turned

on.

>

/kesh

>
>

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

Regardless OOP design reasonings, unchecking these two options makes your
j2ee app undeployable.

/kesh


"kesh" <kesha@cosite.com> wrote in message
news:afs4rh$bm8$1@is.intellij.net...

getters/setters methods of the cmd fields are abstract methods and they
cannot be amended with additional logic by, for example, overriding them.

So

sometimes exposing getters/setters through the local interface makes
incapsulation level of your ejb unexeptably poor. In my team we prefer to
use Domain Value Object pattern for any updates of ejb's fields, so we are
not exposing getters/setters through the local interface.

>

/kesh

>

"Alexey Kudravtsev" <cdr@intellij.com> wrote in message
news:afrplf$qug$1@is.intellij.net...

Hello Kesh,
What's the point of having CMP field accessors in EJB class when nobody

will

be able to use them via interface ?

>

Everybody, please comment whether using CMP field from inside EJB class

only

is so popular pattern.
If it's the case, I can add 'Generate CMP field getter/setter in EJB

Class'

checkboxes in 'Add CMP field' dialog.
--
regards,
Alexey Kudravtsev.
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

>
>

"kesh" <kesha@cosite.com> wrote in message
news:afq8m1$lit$1@is.intellij.net...

When using EJB CMP 2.0:

>

Only ejb-jar.xml file gets modified when both "Generate getter/setter

in

Local interface" options are turned off.
I expected that both get/set methods should have been generated in the
implementation class. It works correctly when these both options are

turned

on.

>

/kesh

>
>

>
>

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

Hello kesh,
accepted, will be fixed in #633, thanks.

--
regards,
Alexey Kudravtsev.
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"kesh" <kesha@cosite.com> wrote in message
news:afs4rh$bm8$1@is.intellij.net...

getters/setters methods of the cmd fields are abstract methods and they
cannot be amended with additional logic by, for example, overriding them.

So

sometimes exposing getters/setters through the local interface makes
incapsulation level of your ejb unexeptably poor. In my team we prefer to
use Domain Value Object pattern for any updates of ejb's fields, so we are
not exposing getters/setters through the local interface.

>

/kesh

>

"Alexey Kudravtsev" <cdr@intellij.com> wrote in message
news:afrplf$qug$1@is.intellij.net...

Hello Kesh,
What's the point of having CMP field accessors in EJB class when nobody

will

be able to use them via interface ?

>

Everybody, please comment whether using CMP field from inside EJB class

only

is so popular pattern.
If it's the case, I can add 'Generate CMP field getter/setter in EJB

Class'

checkboxes in 'Add CMP field' dialog.
--
regards,
Alexey Kudravtsev.
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

>
>

"kesh" <kesha@cosite.com> wrote in message
news:afq8m1$lit$1@is.intellij.net...

When using EJB CMP 2.0:

>

Only ejb-jar.xml file gets modified when both "Generate getter/setter

in

Local interface" options are turned off.
I expected that both get/set methods should have been generated in the
implementation class. It works correctly when these both options are

turned

on.

>

/kesh

>
>

>
>

>
>


0

Please sign in to leave a comment.