Bindable configuration difficulties

[Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

The new @Bindable feature seems to create a bit of confusion because of the new 
autobinding="annotation" configuration. I think autobinding should be changed so that the @Bindable 
annotation is recognized by default, instead of having to explicitly enable it.

Any thoughts on this change?

kind regards

bob

Re: Bindable configuration difficulties

[Ray Garcia <ra...@orbtastic.net>]

Great. I am on board with the change.



On Mar 25, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ray,
>
> On 26/03/2010 01:22 PM, Ray Garcia wrote:
>>
>> Would the unnecessary annotation checking cause any performance  
>> issues
>> in projects that fill the model by calling methods.  (I doubt there
>> would be any)?
>
>
> The bindable fields are scanned and cached at application startup so  
> won't adversely affect performance from what I can see.
>
> kind regards
>
> bob

Re: Bindable configuration difficulties

[Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ray,

On 26/03/2010 01:22 PM, Ray Garcia wrote:
>
> Would the unnecessary annotation checking cause any performance issues
> in projects that fill the model by calling methods.  (I doubt there
> would be any)?


The bindable fields are scanned and cached at application startup so won't adversely affect 
performance from what I can see.

kind regards

bob

Re: Bindable configuration difficulties

[Ray Garcia <ra...@orbtastic.net>]

Bob,

At first I did expect it to be enabled by default, so this would be a
natural change.

Would the unnecessary annotation checking cause any performance issues in
projects that fill the model by calling methods.  (I doubt there would be
any)?

That is all the thoughts I have at the moment.

Regards,
-ray



On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The new @Bindable feature seems to create a bit of confusion because of the
> new autobinding="annotation" configuration. I think autobinding should be
> changed so that the @Bindable annotation is recognized by default, instead
> of having to explicitly enable it.
>
> Any thoughts on this change?
>
> kind regards
>
> bob
>

Re: Bindable configuration difficulties

["Adrian A." <a....@gmail.com>]

> The new @Bindable feature seems to create a bit of confusion because of
> the new autobinding="annotation" configuration.
If I recall well, the same confusion was too when the binding to public 
fields feature was introduced :).

I don't think this "confusion" has to do with the binding type or if 
it's default configured or not, but with the binding concept in itself.

Maybe some sort of simple graphical illustration (not just UML) of the 
concept would help more :) (for both binding types).

I like that public field binding feature however quite much, because 
it's quite practical:
- most of the time, there's no reason for public fields in a page, so 
(once this concept known), it's clear that if a public field is there,
it must be auto-bound :).

Even more, a Click user reported that is writing a simple IDE (IntelliJ 
and NB too if I remember) improvement to highlight public fields if 
they're present in a Page class descent, so regarding "readability", the 
annotation version won't be more "visible" than the old style binding.

> I think autobinding
> should be changed so that the @Bindable annotation is recognized by
> default, instead of having to explicitly enable it.
>
> Any thoughts on this change?
If this is made by default, in the upgrade-path this change should be 
mentioned distinctively, since most applications (at least those I saw 
so far) still use the public field binding approach.

Adrian.