New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Code generation should not contribute (inferred) destroy method name #28215
Comments
Actually I am having some second thoughts on this one. @jhoeller what do you think? |
We should "infer" the close method at build time rather than letting the container do this at runtime. As we're using reflection to invoke the method, that would miss a hint anyway. |
We're going to try to lazily infer this when |
I am still seeing |
OK the good news is that it was a local change I was working on that mutates the bean definition late. This has the effect of making the cache stale or something which brings back the default value for some reason. We should identify why that is and keep the resolution around. |
This commit updates InitDestroyAnnotationBeanPostProcessor to mutate the original bean definition rather than the merged one that can be recreated without it if the cache gets stale. See gh-28215
2e1538a now mutates the original bean definition. |
Removing the workaround in
Is there another instance of this problem? |
Thanks for sharing that. It's unrelated to this specific issue and affects any use of a destroy method. I've created #29077 |
(inferred)
is used as a special method name within the core container. When AOT runs, it should handle that and not write that value.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: