So now what's the process? Should I start stepping through the "JAX-RPC TCK Test Appeals Steps"? Or are we allowed to shortcut that process by talking directly with Rahul and company? Sam?
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: TCK issue: beans with full constructors?
+1
While I don't have a strong opinion on whether full constructors are
implemented (we had them, now we don't, whatever :)), I definitely don't think
they should be mandated.
--G
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: TCK issue: beans with full constructors?
> Greg Truty wrote :
> >
> > *the Bean class must provide zero-argument constructors so it can be
created **
> > using Beans.instantiate(),*
>
> Russell Butek wrote:
> >
> > The TCK requires generated beans to have full constructors.
>
>
> Note: these two statements are not necessarily in conflict. Witness the
> following code generated by the RI from
> http://www.xmethods.net/idemo/wsdl/ISupplier.wsdl:
>
> public PO() {
> }
>
> public PO(supplier.POHeader header, supplier.POLine[] lines) {
> this.header = header;
> this.lines = lines;
> }
>
> I believe that the Apache, IBM, (and possibly Macromedia?) positions
> should be simply that it is inappropriate for the RI and TCK to
> implement a such a feature as it is not in the spec. While I agree with
> Russell's original note, this isn't the forum to discuss the merits of
> the feature - that's the domain of the expert group. Meanwhile, it is
> not appropriate for the RI or TCK to be used as "back doors" to get
> standardization of features upon which the expert group did not agree to.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
