Comments on: My thoughts on the Java 7 property debate http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/ Alex Miller's technical blog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:40:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Alex Miller - Java 7 Roundup (Dec 28th) http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-18932 Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:03:01 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-18932 [...] More info: Closures, Properties, Chained invocation [...] […] More info: Closures, Properties, Chained invocation […]

]]> by: Java 7 « Quintincarlson’s Weblog http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-8307 Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:36:30 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-8307 [...] Now that Java is open source and all that, everyone is up for adding new features to the language that Sun never got around to adding. Things like named arguments, closures, and properties are what interest me most. Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with most of what is being said. Most of the ideas start with a fairly simple and easily overcome problem, a fairly complex solution, then begin tacking on as many “It would be cool if…” or “… just like Ruby” ideas as possible. [...] […] Now that Java is open source and all that, everyone is up for adding new features to the language that Sun never got around to adding. Things like named arguments, closures, and properties are what interest me most. Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with most of what is being said. Most of the ideas start with a fairly simple and easily overcome problem, a fairly complex solution, then begin tacking on as many “It would be cool if…” or “… just like Ruby” ideas as possible. […]

]]> by: Java 7 « Tales of the Sockmaster http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-7864 Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:54:59 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-7864 [...] Java 7 Published September 9th, 2007 Uncategorized Now that Java is open source and all that, everyone is up for adding new features to the language that Sun never got around to adding. Things like named arguments, closures, and properties are what interest me most. Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with most of what is being said. Most of the ideas start with a fairly simple and easily overcome problem, a fairly complex solution, then begin tacking on as many “It would be cool if…” or “… just like Ruby” ideas as possible. [...] […] Java 7 Published September 9th, 2007 Uncategorized Now that Java is open source and all that, everyone is up for adding new features to the language that Sun never got around to adding. Things like named arguments, closures, and properties are what interest me most. Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with most of what is being said. Most of the ideas start with a fairly simple and easily overcome problem, a fairly complex solution, then begin tacking on as many “It would be cool if…” or “… just like Ruby” ideas as possible. […]

]]> by: Some comments on D&R’s Java 7 wishlist http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-6254 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:13:40 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-6254 [...] Properties - I think something around properties would be cool, but I haven’t seen a properties proposal that I’m excited about yet. I think in this case, the devil is in the details. I concur with Charles that defining it on interfaces would be nice. So here’s my reason not to have properties (I’ll take my chances that Charles won’t kill me): no implementation/proposal exists that doesn’t suck in some way. And perhaps more importantly, maybe a non-sucky properties proposal is not possible. I don’t know. If the actual implementation added properties but made the whole language more complicated as a result, then I don’t think it would be worth it. [...] […] Properties - I think something around properties would be cool, but I haven’t seen a properties proposal that I’m excited about yet. I think in this case, the devil is in the details. I concur with Charles that defining it on interfaces would be nice. So here’s my reason not to have properties (I’ll take my chances that Charles won’t kill me): no implementation/proposal exists that doesn’t suck in some way. And perhaps more importantly, maybe a non-sucky properties proposal is not possible. I don’t know. If the actual implementation added properties but made the whole language more complicated as a result, then I don’t think it would be worth it. […]

]]> by: josh http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-625 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:59:37 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/01/26/java7-property/#comment-625 Hi Alex, I know they are working on JSR 295 (and 296 for Swing related enhancements) but I am worrying that these JSRs will add only new API for that, and I think there should be some help from the Java language itself. Right now there are few APIs for that, like excellent JGoodies Binding, but for such an API to work, you have to arm your beans' setters with firePropertyChange stuff and add something that works like a "pointer" - for example: public static final String PROPERTY_NAME = "propertyName". Thinking about solution for that is a good problem to consider I think. Introducing something like "->" would give us object representation for properties, so there will be no need to fire propertyChanges events and no need to add public static final Strings acting as a pointer for our properties. When few object could share one instance of property many problems will be resolved very easily. Of course I cannot imagine right now how could they implement such a new feature into Java in a way that would not break compatibility with legacy stuff, but I believe they can :) Hi Alex,
I know they are working on JSR 295 (and 296 for Swing related enhancements) but I am worrying that these JSRs will add only new API for that, and I think there should be some help from the Java language itself. Right now there are few APIs for that, like excellent JGoodies Binding, but for such an API to work, you have to arm your beans’ setters with firePropertyChange stuff and add something that works like a “pointer” - for example: public static final String PROPERTY_NAME = “propertyName”. Thinking about solution for that is a good problem to consider I think.

Introducing something like “->” would give us object representation for properties, so there will be no need to fire propertyChanges events and no need to add public static final Strings acting as a pointer for our properties.
When few object could share one instance of property many problems will be resolved very easily. Of course I cannot imagine right now how could they implement such a new feature into Java in a way that would not break compatibility with legacy stuff, but I believe they can :)

]]>