[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13087750#comment-13087750
]
Scott Kurz commented on TUSCANY-3924:
-------------------------------------
Why wouldn't the fields in the base class be treated as Property(s)?
Without any specific direction from the spec, I'd have just guessed the base
fields would be treated as such?
Can you give some motivation for why it should be different?
> Inherited fields in service impl classes are treated as Properties
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TUSCANY-3924
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3924
> Project: Tuscany
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Java SCA Assembly Model
> Affects Versions: Java-SCA-2.x
> Reporter: Vijai Kalathur
> Fix For: Java-SCA-2.x
>
>
> In the scenario where the Service impl class extends a class which has no SCA
> annotations in it, protected fields in the base class are interpreted like
> Properties.
> Ideally, only the fields in the impl class should be introspected for
> References/Properties. The fields in the base class should not be
> interpreted as References/Properties if there are no SCA annotations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
