Bugzilla – 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"
Last modified: 2014-01-03 23:15:14 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.
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).