Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 9207789
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 18, 20262026-06-18T00:27:54+00:00 2026-06-18T00:27:54+00:00

EDIT Take this answer with a grain of salt. Much has changed since I

  • 0

EDIT

Take this answer with a grain of salt. Much has changed since I asked this question years ago. I recommend now using Lombok instead of my EL solution. Leaving the original question for historical reasons.


I’m serious tired of getters/setters clogging my code, when I don’t need to control access to the internal state of an object. The only real reason I have to still generate getters/setters is because EL works by locating methods, not fields: ${myBean.fieldName}. where fieldName refers to the method getFieldName(). Would it be possible to extend an EL Resolver to just return the public field value unless a getter was found?


Update based on answer of Steve Atkinson:
I hope this helps someone else. Notice how I explicitly check that I only use this elresolver on Form or Lead objects, which are my domain objects.

public class PublicFieldSupportingELResolver extends ELResolver {
    @Override
    public Class<?> getCommonPropertyType(ELContext context, Object base) {
        if (base instanceof Form || base instanceof Lead) {
            try {
                context.setPropertyResolved(true);
                return base.getClass();
            } catch (Exception e) {
                context.setPropertyResolved(false);
                return null;
            }
        } else {
            context.setPropertyResolved(false);
            return null;
        }
    }

    @Override
    public Iterator<FeatureDescriptor> getFeatureDescriptors(ELContext context, Object base) {
        return null;
    }

    @Override
    public Class<?> getType(ELContext context, Object base, Object property) {
        if (base instanceof Form || base instanceof Lead) {
            try {
                Field field = base.getClass().getField((String) property);
                context.setPropertyResolved(true);
                return field.getType();
            } catch (Exception e) {
                context.setPropertyResolved(false);
                return null;
            }
        } else {
            context.setPropertyResolved(false);
            return null;
        }
    }

    @Override
    public Object getValue(ELContext context, Object base, Object property) {
        if (base instanceof Form || base instanceof Lead) {
            try {
                Field field = base.getClass().getField((String) property);
                Object value = field.get(base);
                context.setPropertyResolved(true);
                return value;
            } catch (Exception e) {
                context.setPropertyResolved(false);
                return null;
            }
        } else {
            context.setPropertyResolved(false);
            return null;
        }
    }

    @Override
    public boolean isReadOnly(ELContext context, Object base, Object property) {
        if (base instanceof Form || base instanceof Lead) {
            try {
                base.getClass().getField((String) property);
                context.setPropertyResolved(true);
                return true;
            } catch (Exception e) {
                context.setPropertyResolved(false);
                return false;
            }
        } else {
            context.setPropertyResolved(false);
            return false;
        }
    }

    @Override
    public void setValue(ELContext context, Object base, Object property, Object value) {
        if (base instanceof Form || base instanceof Lead) {
            try {
                Field field = base.getClass().getField((String) property);
                field.set(base, value);
                context.setPropertyResolved(true);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                context.setPropertyResolved(false);
            }
        } else {
            context.setPropertyResolved(false);
        }
    }
}
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-18T00:27:55+00:00Added an answer on June 18, 2026 at 12:27 am

    You can use @Getter/@Setter annotations from Project Lombok if you don’t want to write/generate getter and setter method(s) on your Java Bean.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

EDIT 07/14 As Bill Burgess mentionned in a comment of his answer, this question
EDIT To simplify this further. Let's take a look at this structure: Table1: idProduct
** EDIT ** Nevermind, just needed to take out the parens... I get this
EDIT 23-06-2012 10:24 (CET) : Found the answer Take a look at the bottom
EDIT 2: Take a look on the Triangle2d sample of this GitHub project for
My question is somewhat related to this answer - https://stackoverflow.com/a/3458299/1635958 . I am working
HEADS UP EDIT: I posted the (simple) answer to this below. No need to
this might be a very simple question, but I could not find an answer
I have a bad feeling that the answer to this question is no, but
Edit if you plan on answering this question please at least read it. Don't

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.