Stefan Groschupf wrote:
Different parameters are sent to each address. So params.length
should equal addresses.length, and if params.length==0 then
addresses.length==0 and there's no call to be made. Make sense? It
might be clearer if the test were changed to addresses.length==0.
Yes,
What bug was that? What is your one-line fix?
http://www.nabble.com/RCP-known-limitation-or-bug--t688207.html
something like:
Object[] values;
method.getReturnType()!=null ? values = (Object[])Array.newInstance
(method.getReturnType(),wrappedValues.length) : values = new Object[0];
Okay, here's my patch attached.
We don't need an all-new unit test file, when just a few lines are
needed there.
Does this look right to you?
Doug
Stefan Groschupf wrote:
What bug was that? What is your one-line fix?
http://www.nabble.com/RCP-known-limitation-or-bug--t688207.html
Different parameters are sent to each address. So params.length
should equal addresses.length, and if params.length==0 then
addresses.length==0 and there's no call to be made. Make sense?
It might be clearer if the test were changed to addresses.length==0.
Yes, this would be better,
Stefan Groschupf wrote:
I also note this line in client.java
public Writable[] call(Writable[] params, InetSocketAddress[] addresses)
throws IOException {
if (params.length == 0) return new Writable[0];
Do I understand it correct that in case the remote method does not need
any
