Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 337804 - ecf, interface hirarchy, declarative services
Summary: ecf, interface hirarchy, declarative services
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: ECF
Classification: RT
Component: ecf.remoteservices (show other bugs)
Version: 3.5.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: ecf.core-inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-02-22 05:26 EST by andrei.kabanov2 CLA
Modified: 2013-01-29 17:00 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
bugs demo (31.32 KB, application/zip)
2011-02-22 05:26 EST, andrei.kabanov2 CLA
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description andrei.kabanov2 CLA 2011-02-22 05:26:27 EST
Created attachment 189465 [details]
bugs demo

ECF versions 3.4.1, 3.5
If I define service as:

public interface IHelloBase
{
	public String message(String mess);
}

public interface IHello extends IHelloBase
{
}

and then its realizatiaon as:

public class Hello implements IHello
{

	@Override
	public String message(String mess)
	{
		String ret = "Recieved ";
		ret += mess;
		System.out.println(ret);
		return ret;
	}
}
,then by using ECF I get  java.lang.NoSuchMethodException: No such
method: message([class java.lang.String]).

The same exception arises in the following case:

public interface IBar

{
	public String helloBar(String mess);
}
public interface IFoo
{
	public String helloFoo(String mess);
}
public class FooBar implements IFoo, IBar
{

	@Override

	public String helloBar(String mess)

	{
		String ret = "helloBar recieved: ";
		ret += mess;
		return ret;
	}

	@Override
	public String helloFoo(String mess)
	{
		String ret = "helloFoo recieved: ";
		ret += mess;
		return ret;
	}
}

When launching on one JVM both cases work as it is expected.

There are demo projects in the attachment.
Comment 1 Markus Kuppe CLA 2011-02-22 05:35:41 EST
Does the fix for bug #331383 also address this bug?
Comment 2 Scott Lewis CLA 2013-01-29 17:00:51 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> Does the fix for bug #331383 also address this bug?

I believe it does.  Resolving.