[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-587?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12604802#action_12604802
]
Felix Meschberger commented on FELIX-587:
-----------------------------------------
AFAIK the ConfigManagerBase.getObjectClassDefinition() takes care of looking at
the object class definition for the factory PID if there is no object class
definition for the PID.
On the other hand your patch only looks at the object class definition for the
factory PID ignoring the PID altogether. While this is certainly not wrong, I
wonder what the exact problem is you are getting.
And if we agree, that for a configuration with a factory PID only the that
value should be considered for finding an object class definition I would
rather prefer a different patch, which I will attach.
> org.apache.felix.webconsole.internal.compendium.AjaxConfigManagerAction.configForm():
> Configuration instance for a ManagedServiceFactory will cause Exception
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-587
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-587
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Web Console
> Reporter: Dieter Wimberger
> Attachments: AjaxConfigManagerAction.java.diff
>
>
> A Configuration instance for a ManagedServiceFactory will cause an Exception
> in
> org.apache.felix.webconsole.internal.compendium.AjaxConfigManagerAction.configForm(),
> because the implementation will try to obtain an ObjectClassDefinition for
> the Configuration pid, rather than for the corresponding factoryPid.
> Fix:
> The method should verify if a factoryPid is assigned to the Configuration
> instance and handle this case properly.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
