No objections to this swing-only solution.
Thanks,
2006/10/6, Oleg Khaschansky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tim,
I attached a patch which doesn't have side effects to HARMONY-1723 :)
--
Oleg
On 10/6/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg Khaschansky wrote:
So what happens to the patch on
Oleg Khaschansky wrote:
So what happens to the patch on HARMONY-1723.
My opinion is that it is OK. Consider the following:
1. Applications bounded to the RI behavior (e.g. obtaining the
descriptors for read-only properties without construction of getter
name) won't fail.
2. Construction
Hi Oleg,
On the other hand, why don't we allow Harmony to accept invalid names
and provide a default replacements for them if there is a set/get/is
method for the specified property? It seems to me more user-friendly
then throw IntrospectionException in this situation. It looks like the
Ok. I am testing another patch for the TransferHandler which won't affect beans.
On 10/6/06, Alexei Zakharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Oleg,
On the other hand, why don't we allow Harmony to accept invalid names
and provide a default replacements for them if there is a set/get/is
method
Tim,
I attached a patch which doesn't have side effects to HARMONY-1723 :)
--
Oleg
On 10/6/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg Khaschansky wrote:
So what happens to the patch on HARMONY-1723.
My opinion is that it is OK. Consider the following:
1. Applications bounded to the RI
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Yes, please. When you submit a patch people will have a chance
to review and comment
Agreed - and please submit it via JIRA. Feel free to point to it on the
list.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Sure. Now I am running the tests on the patch to ensure that
modifications in beans are safe. Will submit when the tests will pass.
On 10/5/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Yes, please. When you submit a patch people will have a chance
to review and comment
Patch for the TransferHandlerTest failure is here:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1723
On 10/5/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/10/5, Oleg Khaschansky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I found the reason of this failure. It is an IntrospectionException
while executing a
Oleg,
+ we need to fix in beans the fact that the following code:
new PropertyDescriptor(propertyName, c.getClass(), 1, null);
will throw IntrospectionException on Harmony, but will return the
valid property descriptor with the getter method on RI.
Any thoughts on this? Or should I proceed with
Alexey,
Agree. I haven't noticed that RI doesn't accept invalid write method.
Then its behavior looks illogical. Actually, I asked about comments
especially because I expected a feedback from beans authors. Thank
you.
On the other hand, why don't we allow Harmony to accept invalid names
and
So what happens to the patch on HARMONY-1723. Do you (Oleg Alexey)
think we should not fix it that way now?
Regards,
Tim
Oleg Khaschansky wrote:
Alexey,
Agree. I haven't noticed that RI doesn't accept invalid write method.
Then its behavior looks illogical. Actually, I asked about
So what happens to the patch on HARMONY-1723.
My opinion is that it is OK. Consider the following:
1. Applications bounded to the RI behavior (e.g. obtaining the
descriptors for read-only properties without construction of getter
name) won't fail.
2. Construction of the default getter/setter
Excuse the change in subject line...
Mark Hindess wrote:
With this change, the awt dependencies should now be automated for
windows and at least fairly trivial (installing a few packages on
Linux[0]). I think it is time we removed the with.awt.swing flag.
Anyone object?
To the contrary,
On 4 October 2006 at 15:41, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse the change in subject line...
No problem. I was just cursing myself for having forgotten to change
it.
Mark Hindess wrote:
With this change, the awt dependencies should now be automated for
windows and at least
Tim Ellison wrote:
Excuse the change in subject line...
Mark Hindess wrote:
With this change, the awt dependencies should now be automated for
windows and at least fairly trivial (installing a few packages on
Linux[0]). I think it is time we removed the with.awt.swing flag.
Anyone object?
Mark Hindess wrote:
On 4 October 2006 at 15:41, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse the change in subject line...
No problem. I was just cursing myself for having forgotten to change
it.
Mark Hindess wrote:
With this change, the awt dependencies should now be automated for
2006/10/4, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 4 October 2006 at 15:41, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse the change in subject line...
No problem. I was just cursing myself for having forgotten to change
it.
Mark Hindess wrote:
With this change, the awt dependencies should now
2006/10/4, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mark Hindess wrote:
On 4 October 2006 at 15:41, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse the change in subject line...
No problem. I was just cursing myself for having forgotten to change
it.
Mark Hindess wrote:
With this change, the
ah, just read this after posting the same note myself.
So yes, I see the same.
Regards,
Tim
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/10/4, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 4 October 2006 at 15:41, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse the change in subject line...
No problem. I was just
I found the reason of this failure. It is an IntrospectionException
while executing a following method from the TransferHandler class:
private PropertyDescriptor getPropertyDescriptor(final JComponent c) {
PropertyDescriptor result = null;
try {
result = new
2006/10/5, Oleg Khaschansky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I found the reason of this failure. It is an IntrospectionException
while executing a following method from the TransferHandler class:
private PropertyDescriptor getPropertyDescriptor(final JComponent c) {
PropertyDescriptor result =
21 matches
Mail list logo
