Well constructor is not a method :)
so RI and Harmony are not necessary violate the spec
I'd probably stick to the current behavior
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/8/3, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
As far as I understand RI simply take the first declared method. In
other words, if we swap constructors in the above example like this
public static class MyBean {
static String calledM = null;
public MyBean(Integer arg) {
calledM = "new2";
}
public MyBean(Object arg) {
calledM = "new1";
}
}
the result will be "PASS".
:-/
Thanks,
2006/8/3, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How does RI behave if there are three methods? does it alway selects less
> specific?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/8/3, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi community,
> >
> > I'd like to attract everyone's attention to another RI inconsistence.
> > It seems RI has a bug in the implementation of execute() method of the
> > java.beans.Statement class. The spec states:
> >
> > 1. "When the target's class defines many methods with the given name
> > the implementation should choose the most specific method using the
> > algorithm specified in the Java Language Specification (15.11)."
> > 2. "The reserved method name "new" may be used to call a class's
> > constructor as if all classes defined static "new" methods."
> >
> > But the following test shows that RI does not follow these rules –
> > does not choose the most specific method:
> >
> > import java.beans.*;
> >
> > public class StatementTest {
> >
> > public static class MyBean {
> > static String calledM = null;
> >
> > public MyBean(Object arg) {
> > calledM = "new1";
> > }
> >
> > public MyBean(Integer arg) {
> > calledM = "new2";
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > public static void main(String argv[]) throws Exception {
> > Statement stmt = new Statement(MyBean.class, "new",
> > new Object[] { new Integer(17) });
> >
> > stmt.execute();
> > if (!MyBean.calledM.equals("new2")) {
> > System.out.println("FAIL");
> > } else {
> > System.out.println("PASS");
> > }
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > The result is "FAIL" on RI. However, it behaves correctly for regular
> > methods (that aren't constructors). I think I should post "Non-bug
> > differences from RI" JIRA. I am also going to correct our
> > implementation of Statement since it is now "compatible" with RI. Any
> > objections?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Alexei Zakharov,
> > Intel Middleware Product Division
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
