tracker issue : CF-3037981

select a category, or use search below
(searches all categories and all time range)
Title:

Bug 76132:Configure access type of implicit getters/setters

| View in Tracker

Status/Resolution/Reason: Closed/Deferred/

Reporter/Name(from Bugbase): Devin Holloway / Devin Holloway (Devin Holloway)

Created: 03/23/2009

Components: Language, CF Component

Versions: 9.0

Failure Type: Unspecified

Found In Build/Fixed In Build: 0000 /

Priority/Frequency: Normal / Unknown

Locale/System: English / Platforms All

Vote Count: 14

Problem:

Configure access type of implicit getters/setters.

Currently, implicit getters/setters can be public or none at all. There's no way to restrict them to the private, package, or remote access levels.

The current work-around is to define the getter/setter explicitly.

A proposed solution would be to add additional values to the  @getter/@setter attribute, in addition to the current true/false values.

@setter false (no setter: read-only)
@setter public (default - same as 'true')
@setter package
@setter private
@setter remote

Another solution would be to keep the @setter/@getter attributes as they are, but introduce a new attribute to define the access level:

@setter true
@setterAccess package

Method:


Result:

----------------------------- Additional Watson Details -----------------------------

Watson Bug ID:	3037981

External Customer Info:
External Company:  
External Customer Name: Devin Holloway
External Customer Email: 5E060FD6422E831A992015D5
External Test Config: 03/23/2009

Attachments:

Comments:

+1 vote. Makes sense to me. -- Adam
Vote by External U.
23880 | November 10, 2011 07:18:30 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23881 | November 10, 2011 07:18:31 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23882 | November 10, 2011 07:18:32 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23883 | November 10, 2011 07:18:33 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23884 | November 10, 2011 07:18:34 PM GMT
Yes, this would be very useful. I'm more in favour of the 'setterAccess' style attribute, as it will work across tags and script.
Vote by External U.
23885 | November 10, 2011 07:18:35 PM GMT
+1 Sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm always for "more control"
Vote by External U.
23886 | November 10, 2011 07:18:36 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23887 | November 10, 2011 07:18:37 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23888 | November 10, 2011 07:18:38 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23889 | November 10, 2011 07:18:39 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23890 | November 10, 2011 07:18:40 PM GMT
+1, if CF should provide more control over the attributes of these auto-gen'd getters/setters.
Vote by External U.
23891 | November 10, 2011 07:18:41 PM GMT
This bug has been voted..
Vote by External U.
23892 | November 10, 2011 07:18:42 PM GMT
Providing some ability to control setter access is a good idea, though it might be better to have a separate parameter to handle it.
Vote by External U.
23893 | August 29, 2013 10:58:55 AM GMT