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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
