On Dec 21, 2006, at 7:37 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
I noticed that IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect uses
getAllPublicAndProtectedFields to obtain the fields on
which to invoke each processor's visitField. However,
the C&I spec seems to imply that it should be possible
to inject a conversation id (the spec still refers to it as
@SessionID but that's another matter) into a private
field.
That's a bug in the spec. We should probably file a JIRA at the
OSOA web site.
I should say, both are bugs in the spec. SessionID should be
"ConversationID" and fields should be protected or public. I've
already changed the "SessionID" naming in the latest version but we
should file the other JIRA related to field visibility so it does not
get lost.
Jim
Jim
Should IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect be changed
or is the spec wrong in its assumption?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
