Bug 5389 - In Sec. 10.7.1, should we have said we require a "no-arg" explicit or implicit constructor rather than a "default constructor"
In Sec. 10.7.1, should we have said we require a "no-arg" explicit or implici...
Status: NEW
Product: jbatch
Classification: Unclassified
Component: SPEC
All All
: P5 minor
: ---
Assigned To: ScottKurz
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-09-11 20:41 UTC by ScottKurz
Modified: 2014-01-03 23:15 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ScottKurz 2013-09-11 20:41:52 UTC
The concern is that "default constructor" is imprecise since it implies implicit and excludes an explicit, no-arg constructor.

Probably would have just let this slide, but since it overlapped some other confusion (in which the TCK's batch.xml had a bunch of extraneous entries), I'll just open it though it's very minor.  Unless someone can show that "default constructor" is correct.
Comment 1 ScottKurz 2014-01-03 23:15:14 UTC
Changed wording to read:

2.	Use of batch.xml to load batch artifacts requires the availability of a zero-argument constructor (either a default constructor or an explicitly-defined, no-arg constructor).