aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alasdair Nottingham <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Bluerint] Injection of properties not conformant with java-beans
Date Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:04:06 GMT
My gut feel would still be no, but do you know if the RI does this?

Alasdair

On 25 November 2010 14:17, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 15:05, Alasdair Nottingham <not@apache.org> wrote:
>> The spec also says:
>>
>> This name refers to the set method on the constructed object as
>> specified in the design pattern for beans getters and setters, see [6]
>> Java Beans Specification.
>>
>> As I recall the java.beans.Introspector requires a void return type so
>> I think the answer is no. However you could argue that we should
>> support JavaBeans spec more generally which would allow the bean
>> author to provide a BeanInfo that contains a PropertyDescriptor whose
>> write method had a return value. I just don't know if I agree with
>> this argument.
>
> No, I wouldn't either.  However, the question is, if it's not tested
> by TCK and the RI does that, can / should we do it too ?
>
>>
>> Alasdair
>>
>> On 25 November 2010 13:13, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The errata (http://www.osgi.org/Release4/Errata) says:
>>>
>>> 121.5.7
>>> It was stated that overloaded property set methods must not be used.
>>> This is relaxed. The sentence now reads: "There should only be one set
>>> method with a single argument for a specific property. If overloaded
>>> properties are encountered, the chosen set method is unspecified."
>>>
>>> It does not seem to very explicit about having setters with non void
>>> return values.
>>> Can we enhance our implementation to support that ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 14:08, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The first version of the spec specifically disallowed supporting such
>>>> setters afaik, but I seem to recall a discussion about an errata on
>>>> the spec maybe related to that?
>>>> Any information ? It seems our implementation does not like setters
>>>> which have a non void return value, just wanted to check if that was
>>>> still a mandated behavior or not.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> ------------------------
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alasdair Nottingham
>> not@apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>



-- 
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org

Mime
View raw message