JavaBean

[Oprah Thaddeus]

I have a simple question about Java Bean.

The following code has been taken from the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaBean

/**
 * Class <code>PersonBean</code>.
 */
public class PersonBean implements java.io.Serializable {
 
    private String name;
 
    private boolean deceased;
 
    /** No-arg constructor (takes no arguments). */
    public PersonBean() {
    }
 
    /**
     * Property <code>name</code> (note capitalization) readable/writable.
     */
    public String getName() {
        return this.name;
    }
 
    /**
     * Setter for property <code>name</code>.
     * @param name
     */
    public void setName(final String name) {
        this.name = name;
    }
 
    /**
     * Getter for property "deceased"
     * Different syntax for a boolean field (is vs. get)
     */
    public boolean isDeceased() {
        return this.deceased;
    }
 
    /**
     * Setter for property <code>deceased</code>.
     * @param deceased
     */
    public void setDeceased(final boolean deceased) {
        this.deceased = deceased;
    }
}

Now my question is, if we have a getDeceased method such as

    public Boolean getDeceased() {
        return this.Deceased;
    }
 

,

will I be breaking the JavaBean naming convention?

And secondly, is the Different syntax for a boolean field (is vs. get) only for boolean variables?

[Sagar Rohankar]

Swagato Bhatta wrote:
Now my question is, if we have a getDeceased method such as

    public Boolean getDeceased() {
        return this.Deceased;
    }
 

,

will I be breaking the JavaBean naming convention?

Not really, but Java Bean design theory suggest to use isDeceased(), which is good and convey what it returns. Also this.Deceased; throws error.

Swagato Bhatta wrote:And secondly, is the Different syntax for a boolean field (is vs. get) only for boolean variables?

Yes.