> >My workaround was to set the class to public and document that it isn't > >really. Obviously I'd much prefer having getAccessibleMethod rewritten, > >but am not quite sure how to do that correctly. > > The requirement for a public class is a limitation of introspection in > Java that BeanUtils inherits from java.beans.Introspector. The logic in > getAccessibleMethod() took a long time to get to its current state (it > includes workarounds for bugs on some JVMs), I see. I noticed there appears to be a bit of black magic going on. ;)
> and I'm hesitant to mess > with it without a *substantial* suite of test cases to verify we don't > break anything. Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on such a > suite at the moment :-(. > > One workaround to exposing more public properties than you really want > (which has also been discussed on this thread) is to use a BeanInfo > class to describe your bean class. Using this technique, you can tell > the introspector exactly which properties to expose (and even use > different method names than the usual design pattern requirements, if > you want). See the JavaBeans Specification for more information: > > http://java.sun.com/products/javabeans/docs/ Thanks, but I guess for now I'll just keep the superclass public. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
