Re: DB_DataObject's class generator

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:27:57 +0100, Torsten Roehr <roehr@zilleon.com> wrote: > "Alan Knowles" <alan@akbkhome.com> wrote in message > news:41BBC524.3090308@akbkhome.com... > > > > I've had a few offers of patches to convert to private + setter/getters > > - but none have been posted yet. :) > > > > I think the generator in cvs supports writing privates, but I havent > > looked at it for a little while. > > > > There is a slight complication, as the joinAdd + links code will very > > likely have to be changed, as they read/write from other objects. > > > > Regards > > Alan > > Hi Alan, > > thanks for your response. As you seem interested I will try to add a > buildGetters() method on top of the current CVS version next week. The use > should be optional and default to false, so we need another option like > 'buildGetters' => true. > > I won't touch the property declarations but maybe in the future they could > be reformatted with a proper docblock. I will include docblocks in the > getter declarations. IMHO it doesn't make sense to auto-generate setters - > most developers will customize them anyway to include sanitization and > validation of the input values so they should not be part of the > auto-generated part of the class. > > What do you think (also regarding the name of the method and the option)? > I think that setters *should* be auto-generated along with getters. Getters aren't really useful unless you have setters. I thought the point of this option was to make a "private member vars" ready DO? The dev just has to alter the parts of it that need different validation. -- Justin Patrin