[ mx4j-Bugs-831644 ] check for standard mbean compliance is wrong
"SourceForge.net" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.mx4j.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Bugs item #831644, was opened at 2003-10-28 04:44 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by btscully You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=450647&aid=831644&group_id=47745 Category: JMX implementation Group: None Status: Closed Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jan Bartel (janb) Assigned to: Brian Scully (btscully) Summary: check for standard mbean compliance is wrong Initial Comment: If I have 2 interfaces which both contain the same method signature, then a standard mbean which inherits from both interfaces will cause a NotCompliantMBean exception, complaining that the method is overloaded (when in fact it isnt). I've attached a little test program to illustrate what I mean. Jan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Brian Scully (btscully) Date: 2003-10-30 21:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=234750 The specification dictates that matching signatures (operation or attribute) returning different types should cause a NonCompliantMBeanException. It is silent on matching signatures that return the same types - which is the example provided. Redundant attribute accessors are now ignored in the introspection process. The code will by design still reject matching signatures with different return types, as well as using getXXX and isXXX for the same boolean attribute. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Brian Scully (btscully) Date: 2003-10-30 21:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=234750 The specification dictates that matching signatures (operation or attribute) returning different types should cause a NonCompliantMBeanException. It is silent on matching signatures that return the same types - which is the example provided. Redundant attribute accessors are now ignored in the introspection process. The code will by design still reject matching signatures with different return types, as well as using getXXX and isXXX for the same boolean attribute. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=450647&aid=831644&group_id=47745 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/