[jboss-dev-forums] [Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: MDR doesn't work on annotated privates

[wolfc]

"adrian at jboss.org" wrote : Ok, I understand now. It's not an override.
  | 
  | This isn't even really java since without a setAccessible() it's illegal. :-)
  | 
  | 
  |   |       Sub sub = new Sub();
  |   |       Method method = Super.class.getDeclaredMethod("doSomething");
  |   |       // method.setAccessible(true);
  |   |       method.invoke(sub); 
  |   | 
  |   | Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalAccessException: Class Sub can not access a member of class Super with modifiers "private"
  |   | 	at sun.reflect.Reflection.ensureMemberAccess(Reflection.java:65)
  |   | 	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:588)
  |   | 	at Sub.main(Sub.java:36)
  |   | 
  | 
  | I guess it's mitigated by the super class having to add the annotation
  | that allows it?
Ehr... nope, not really. You're still thinking to cleanly. ;-)
"adrian at jboss.org" wrote : Since you don't need to setAccessible() to retrieve annotations from
  | the private super method then I don't think we would be introducing a security 
  | hole by supporting it within the MDR (this prints null).
  | 
  | 
  |   |       Method method = Super.class.getDeclaredMethod("doSomething");
  |   |       //method.setAccessible(true);
  |   |       System.out.println(method.getAnnotation(Inherited.class)); 
  |   | 
  | 
  | I'd say you're idea of a new Signature is probably the easiest way to resolve this.
  | 
  | My concern would be whether AOP needs to also use annotations on the
  | method during the invocation and so know to use this Signature?
Not right now, because the EJB3 container sets up a manual interceptor chain. In future this chain should also come from aop.xml, then it might become a problem.

Note that both web container & client container have so far been left out of scope.

Is there a Jira for the new method signature?

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4170338#4170338

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4170338