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
> metho
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
specific
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 prov
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 wit
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 f
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 = nul
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 PropertyDe
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 shou
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 leas
