Thanks.
I was planning on calling these POGOs from Groovy.
I was NOT trying to save on writing unit tests. I simply feel that less code that needs to be tested is less code that tests can miss and less tests that need to be maintained if the code changes or the pattern changes.
The setters that we use are currently as described above, but if someone comes up with some new piece to the setter, then all of the tests will have to be updated. If this code can be injected, then only the injection process needs to be changed and its tests updated -- less chance of missing something.
I wholeheartly agree that avoiding code duplication is the real goal (DRY).
G. Ralph Kuntz, MD
