activationConditionRef problem

[Ian Young]

> On 10 Jul 2015, at 19:14, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Yeah, as I noted on users, my results using c:name have been very inconsistent. Sometimes it works, and other times all the typing craziness gets in the way and just doesn't seem to work. As an example, see if you can get a simple String bean built with a constructor set by name. I don't think I managed it.

I've found c:_0 (or even c:_) to be the easiest thing to use most of the time when the class has a single constructor. It has the advantage that you don't need to know the name of the argument, which I seem to recall gets a bit peculiar for interface implementations.

c:name tends to be the thing to use if there are multiple constructors with different argument types.

Of course it's possible to design a class where neither of these is guaranteed to dig you out of the hole by themselves.

    -- Ian




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20150710/9a2c0bd5/attachment.p7s>