On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:50 +0100, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Martin Grotzke wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 17:43 +0100, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> >> Hi Martin, Jens,
> >>
> >> Could things be related to the following issue:
> >>
> >> https://jersey.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=222
> > yes, might be related to it. Jens, what do you say, what's your setup?
> >
> >>
> >> Martin, the patch supplied with the issue looks good, but if you have
> >> time could you look at it, also any hints help on writing unit tests
> >> for it would be most helpful.
> > +1 for having a test for this.
> >
>
> Do you have time to help create some tests? or provide some pointers?
Right now I cannot say when I'll have time. The use case described here
is also new to me, so I would have to reproduce this based on the
information provided until now. So I cannot provide pointers :-(
>
>
> > Personally I would prefer to ask the beanFactory with
> > beanFactory.containsBeanDefinition over the handled exception in
> > scanForBeanDefinition, but that's just my preference :)
> >
>
> Is that a cleaner and easier solution to maintain?
I expect this to be cleaner, as exceptions are not used for flow control
then. But how exceptions are used for flow control can lead to somehow
esoteric discussions :)
Cheers,
Martin
>
> Paul.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net