Hi Tim,
<-- persuasion starts here
Let me cite the spec describing design patterns for properties,
JavaBeans spec v1.01-A (Aug 8, 1997), page 55:
---
8.3 Design Patterns for Properties
8.3.1 Simple properties
By default, we use design patterns to locate properties by looking for
methods of the form:
public <PropertyType> get<PropertyName>();
public void set<PropertyName>(<PropertyType> a);
8.3.2 Boolean properties
In addition, for boolean properties, we allow a
public boolean is<PropertyName>();
8.3.3 Indexed properties
If we find a property whose type is an array "<PropertyElement>[]",
then we also look for methods of the form:
public <PropertyElement> get<PropertyName>(int a);
public void set<PropertyName>(int a, <PropertyElement> b);
---
So we have only three design patterns specified for properties. That's
all. I didn't found any mentioning about any extra design patterns and
I've never heard anything about setDefaults() or smth. like it.
On the other hand, if I understand things correctly the Introspector
class should be the decision-making center for such type of things.
I.e. if Introspector says there is no properties then there should be
no properties. RI doesn't seem to be using Introspector in the example
I've described ealier. Thus I still think it looks like RI bug.
<-- end of persuasion
Thanks and regards,
2006/10/14, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
That is strange behavior, since as you point out it does not set a
parametrized value, however, I wonder if there is some assumption that
the setFoo() method may be a mutator anyway, e.g. setDefaults() or
something like that? Just guessing.
In this case it may be safer to follow the RI -- but I'm open to persuasion.
Regards,
Tim
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Let me disturb you with another boring "RI inconsistency in beans"
> –type of message. :) It seems I found a bug in RI. In
> java.beans.EventHandler. I think RI incorrectly determines properties
> here. According to spec, common sense and even the RI's implementation
> of java.beans.Introspector the following bean should not contain any
> properties:
>
> public static class MyBean {
> public void setProp1() {}
> }
>
> because "setProp1()" is not a valid setter method – it does not
> contain a new value to set.
> However, the following test fails on RI:
>
> <---
> import java.beans.*;
>
> public class TestBeanInfo1 {
> public static class MyBean {
> public void setProp1() {}
> }
>
> public static void main(String argv[]) throws Exception {
> MyBean bean = new MyBean();
> // "prop1" is neither the name of writeable property nor the
> name of any public method
> Object proxy = EventHandler.create(
> PropertyChangeListener.class, bean, "prop1");
>
> // just to show that Introspector doesn't see the property
> with name "prop1"
> PropertyDescriptor[] pds = Introspector.getBeanInfo(MyBean.class,
> Introspector.USE_ALL_BEANINFO).getPropertyDescriptors();
> for (int i = 0; i < pds.length; i++) {
> System.out.println("Property found: " + pds[i].getName());
> }
>
> // should throw exception
> try {
> ((PropertyChangeListener) proxy).propertyChange(
> new PropertyChangeEvent(bean, "prop1", "1", "2"));
> System.out.println("FAIL");
> } catch (Throwable t) {
> System.out.println("PASS");
> }
> }
> }
> <---
>
> So it determines "prop1" as a valid property. IMHO this behavior is
> inconsistent and we should not follow RI. But I like to hear opinions
> from the rest of the community.
>
> Thanks,
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division, Russia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
