On 27/06/2013 15:29, Nick Williams wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2013, at 6:08 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote: > >> Author: markt >> Date: Thu Jun 27 11:08:03 2013 >> New Revision: 1497299 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1497299 >> Log: >> WebSocket 1.0, Section 4.8 >> Don't look for annotations on inherited methods. >> >> Modified: >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/websocket/pojo/PojoMethodMapping.java >> >> Modified: >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/websocket/pojo/PojoMethodMapping.java >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/websocket/pojo/PojoMethodMapping.java?rev=1497299&r1=1497298&r2=1497299&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/websocket/pojo/PojoMethodMapping.java >> (original) >> +++ >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/websocket/pojo/PojoMethodMapping.java >> Thu Jun 27 11:08:03 2013 >> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ public class PojoMethodMapping { >> Method open = null; >> Method close = null; >> Method error = null; >> - for (Method method : clazzPojo.getMethods()) { >> + for (Method method : clazzPojo.getDeclaredMethods()) { >> if (method.getAnnotation(OnOpen.class) != null) { > > This will return non-public methods as well as public methods. Are non-public > WebSocket-annotated methods permitted?
The spec is silent on that particular issue. > If not, would it be better to throw an exception here > if(!Modifier.isPublic(method.getModifiers())) instead of allowing > configuration to succeed and then receiving an IllegalAccessException during > a session, possibly after it has been active for some time? The other option is to ignore them (which is what happened before). I'm leaning towards the Exception approach. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
