|
From: Carlos Q. <car...@we...> - 2002-02-05 22:00:16
|
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 23:42, Dmitri Colebatch wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 February 2002 23:03, Dmitri Colebatch wrote: > > > sorry about that - fixed in CVS now. > > > > Sorry problems again > > now @openjmx:description extends="" generates a class which doesn't > > extends anything but it has the extends word > > > > like MyServiceMBeanDescription extends > > > > @openjmx:description extends="XXX" generates the right > > > > MyServiceMBeanDescription extends XXX > > I think thats fair enough, I'm not sure what behaviour you'd prefer - > perhaps ignore the tag altogether? Actually now that you mention it, it is a debatable point of view. Then the right way to write should be @openjmx:description extends="openjmx.MBeanDescriptionAdaptor" in case you explicitely need it. That's probably clearer I'll leave as is and make a release > > but really, if someone has said it extends an empty class, then so be it. > javac behaves the same way (o: > > let me know what you'd like to see, and if its easy, then I have np with > it. > > cheers > dim |