This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
[build 200501130000] Let's have EJB module with some beans. Open some session bean and go to one of its business method with the cursor. Now open properties window (Ctrl+Shift+7). In this window, there is user able to change the parameters of this business method. So let's change them (eg. add new "i" parameter of type int). => user can't simply build the project now, he/she have to do some addition steps (edit interface(s) manually) I guess there are 2 possible solutions: 1) don't allow user to edit parameters of business methods through properties window => disable this dialog 2) propagate these changes to interfaces etc... Same issue is with webservices' operations.
refactoring...
There's no support for things like this in plain java, too. I believe refactoring/synchronization dialog should be offered on such changes. Anyway, it will probably need some UI input. I'm guessing the right component, please reassign if needed.
Adding parameters is not possible using properties window in plain java. So, the plain java acts as suggested in option 1). I guess the j2ee nodes should do the same thing.
several things: - ejb properties do exactly the same as java, there's no difference - change/add/remove parameters through properties works as you say, the problem there is that the field is editable - I CAN open dialog, add parameters, but nothing happens at the end - really terrible behaviour - this bug is not just about add properties to method; there are Exception, return type, modifiers fields as well that are editable and no synchronisation happens
*** Issue 53374 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Honzo, can you fix it?
*** Issue 47303 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
JavaNode properties are subject of the issue #50150. The parameters cusomizer allowing to modify ro parameters is definitely a bug that will be fixed under the original issue #47303. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 50150 ***
v.