On 26.05.16 9:51, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Property may be randomly or predictably selected using some algo. But
the corresponding PropertyDescriptor should contain the correct getter
and setter.
We have :
SUPER.setFoo(Long)
SUPER.getFoo()
SUB.setFoo(Long)
SUB.setFoo(Integer)
How many Foos may be combined here :
1. Long Foo : SUPER.getFoo() / SUB.setFoo(Long)
2. Integer Foo: null / SUB.setFoo(Integer)
In this case we have 2 properties. The SUPER property have foo=long,
which can be checked if you run Introspector on it. The SUB property
have foo=int, which can be checked using Introspector and SUPER as stop
class. Since this types don't correspond to eachother then the SUB
property discarded(it does not mean that we select incorrect method it
means that we totally skip the whole incorrect SUB property). This is
the case which we are talking from the beginning and which was filed:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157828
In my opinion, the method may return any of this two (also a secondary
rank could be used), but not a mixture of them in any circumstances.
--Semyon
In my understanding, if I override the setter I should get the
over-ridden method for the top level class introspection. Otherwise
I do
not understand for what such introspector can be used:
I have some object which property I want to set, but using the
introspector for that I'm calling a wrong method which breaks the
inheritance and so corrupts the object state.
And moreover, if I reverse the situation and override the getter in
Sub
instead of setter :
class Super {
public void setFoo(Long i) {}
public Long getFoo() {return null;}
}
class Sub extends Super {
public Long getFoo() {return null;}
}
the introspector returns the over-ridden getter method for the
property :
type: class java.lang.Long
getter: public java.lang.Long Sub.getFoo()
setter: public void Super.setFoo(java.lang.Long)
This looks inconsistent.
--Semyon
On 5/25/2016 2:14 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 25.05.16 11:38, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
In this case the type of foo property will be Enum, before and
after
the fix. But the write method will be found only if this
method is
added to Sub, in other case the write method is recognized only
if we
remove all duplicates of set(xxx). Not sure is it intended
behavior in
jdk9 to skip such writers or not. I will file CR for that.
That maybe an another issue.
I dig to the history and found that it was done intentionally when
JavaBean jep was implemented. but I filed
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157828 for additional
investigation.
But the current fix need to be checked by
the scenario when there are several getters (over-ridden with the
return
type substitutability) in addition to the setters.
Tescase is updated, the case: getE + multiple setE is added:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8156043/webrev.01/
On 5/17/2016 3:20 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hello.
Please review the fix for jdk9.
We have a number of bugs which state that our JavaBeans
randomly
does
not work, examples: JDK-6807471[1] , JDK-6788525[2], the
reason is
that the order of methods from Class.getMethods() is not
specified.
So I propose to fix this bug totally and sort the methods in
some
order. Note that the resulted list is cached, and we sort the
list
only the once.
The code partly was copied from
com.sun.jmx.mbeanserver.MethodOrder
[3], but the parameters check and the order for return values
were
changed. After this fix our bugs(if any) can be easily
reproduced.
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6807471
[2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6788525
[3]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/client/jdk/file/fb38b0925915/src/java.management/share/classes/com/sun/jmx/mbeanserver/MBeanAnalyzer.java
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156043
Webrev can be found at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8156043/webrev.00
--
Best regards, Sergey.
