tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Howard Lewis Ship" <hls...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: T5:
Date Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:34:47 GMT
Very odd.

The transformation does remove the _identity field, but since the
field is private, that should not matter.  There are other
transformations that also remove fields.

I don't  have a test for this specific case, I'll have to add one.

What package is the base class in? That affects what classes are
transformed, though it looks like the transformation is happening.

@ComponentClass on a base class is sufficient.

On 1/27/07, Ted Steen <ted.steen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Abstract class CommonBasePage is annotated with @ComponentClass and
> defines a field "_identity" which is annotated with @ApplicationState.
> get and set for the field is implemented in CommonBasePage.
> the abstract class BasePage extends CommonBasePage
>
> now, when I create a new page Main I let it extend from BasePage.
> but then I get
> java.lang.NoSuchFieldError: _identity at
> net.keso.ted.peng5.pages.CommonPengBasePage.containingPageDidLoad(CommonPengBasePage.java)
> .
> .
> .
>
> Am I doing something wrong?
> Also, should I annotate the Main page with @ComponentClass or can I
> assume that it is inherited from CommonBasePage?
>
> --
> /ted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Howard M. Lewis Ship
TWD Consulting, Inc.
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
Creator, Apache HiveMind

Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org


Mime
View raw message