JDK-4305280 : PropertyEditorSupport constructor should be public
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Component: client-libs
  • Sub-Component: java.beans
  • Affected Version: 1.2.0,1.2.2
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: generic,windows_nt
  • CPU: generic,x86
  • Submitted: 2000-01-18
  • Updated: 2017-05-16
  • Resolved: 2003-08-15
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
5.0 tigerFixed
Related Reports
Duplicate :  
JDK-4177767 - Customizers & Property editors should be expandable
Relates :  
JDK-6582164 - JavaBeans tests should be open source
Description

Name: krT82822			Date: 01/18/2000


java version "1.2.2"
Classic VM (build JDK-1.2.2-001, native threads, symcjit)

Am I mad, or doesn't the PropertyEditorSupport(Object) constructor need to be
public for delegation to work?

The fact that this bug has not been reported before now is a testament to the
fact that noone uses PropertyEditorSupport via delegation from another class.
(not even the QA people who should have tested this functionality)
(Review ID: 99727) 
======================================================================
Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: tiger FIXED IN: tiger INTEGRATED IN: tiger tiger-b16
14-06-2004
WORK AROUND Name: krT82822 Date: 01/18/2000 Create a sub-class of PropertyEditorSupport that provides a public constructor for delegation. But that defeats the whole purpose doesn't it? ======================================================================
11-06-2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS x
10-06-2004
EVALUATION This is a valid point. One of the desires of some of the builder vendors is to expose the source component of a PropertyEditor. We should also add get/setSource() as well. Ideally, we should add these methods /requirements on PropertyEditor but that is an interface and we would be breaking a lot of existing code. ###@###.### 2001-12-10 Some licensees have been requesting that we introduce a new interface to get the source object. We may consider that option but in the meantime, we can get the same functionality by exposing the source object in PropertyEditorSupport. They also advise that the specification should emphasise that the source object should be for informational purposes only (read only). ###@###.### 2003-03-17
17-03-2003