On Mar 11, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Martin Grotzke wrote:
> 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 :)
>
OK. I have committed it as is for now because as i do not have a test
case and do not want to break things.
Paul.