mmmm I've made a mistake ... sorry !
Anyway the problem was that the EA spec. states that properties must not
be mutable, while in the new UPnP spec. the upnp.events property is a
mutable dictionary. Thus Karl has used in the Bridge the following final
Dictionary implementation instead of doing a copy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
final Dictionary immutableEvents = new Dictionary(){
public int size()
{
return events.size();
}
.....
public Object get(Object arg0)
{
return events.get(arg0);
}
public Object put(Object arg0, Object arg1)
{
throw new IllegalStateException("Event
Properties may not be changed");
}
public Object remove(Object arg0)
{
throw new IllegalStateException("Event
Properties may not be changed");
}
.....
};
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wondering if the same approach could be used for the general Event
class. But I figured out just now that it is not a correct solution.
In fact a client can always get() a reference of a mutable object and
modifies its value. :(
so forget the question that I have raised !! sorry again.
francesco
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Karl Pauls wrote:
There are three issues with this. First, I don't think we can provide
a different implementation of org.osgi.service.event.Event; It's a
given and changing it is out of the question (unless I'm very much
mistaken).
We can provide a different implementation as long as it doesn't change
the semantics in such a way that it would violate spec compliance. There
are already some classes we provide different implementations for, such
as AdminPermission and FrameworkUtil.
Of course, I cannot say that I totally understand what is at issue here.
-> richard
