I've tried both of these patches, and they both work for me. I'm happy to get these committed unless anyone else has any comments?
Cheers Jon On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Shawn Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > Just found a related commit: > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=941800&view=rev > Log: > OPENEJB-1188 adding LocalBean functionality > > > But there are other problem besides the regression brought by the commit > above. I've created another patch to address this issue. > > Could you please review it ? > > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Shawn Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:54 AM, David Blevins <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: > >> > >> > Could yo please review the patch I attached in this JIRA ? > >> > >> [see below] > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM, David Blevins < > [email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Good catch! I went a head and whipped up a little test case for > this: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/openejb3/container/openejb-core/src/test/java/org/apache/openejb/core/stateful/CallbackOverridesTest.java > >> >> > >> >> All the existing override logic is done in the > >> InterceptorBindingBuilder > >> >> class. We could probably improve that logic to be sensitive of the > >> fact > >> >> that the target method may be a private method, in which case we > don't > >> need > >> >> to apply the override concept. > >> > > > > Yes we might have a regression since G 2.2. was tested. I'll take a > look > > at this to see what's the reason of the regression before I improve the > > logic of the patch. > > > > > >> > >> I dug into this a little bit more and looks like we have one failing TCK > >> test for the overrides. Seems like we might have a regression since G > 2.2 > >> was tested. Or perhaps there's been a TCK update since 2.2. > >> > > > > As I know, there's no TCK update since 2.2. > > > > > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Shawn > > > > > > -- > Shawn >
