Why not TreeCacheMBean::get(FQN) or TreeCacheMBean::get(Stri

[ticklishturtletoe]

There's a TreeCache::get(FQN) and TreeCache::get(String), which I find useful and grew accustomed to in my first project that uses JBossCache. As I'm getting a little further into the project, I'm retooling it to use MBean. I was disappointed to find that there was no TreeCacheMBean::get(FQN) or TreeCacheMBean::get(String). Was that a mere oversight or by design?

If it's by design, then any alternative "best practices" code that you can suggest would be appreciated.

TIA,
TTT

[ticklishturtletoe]

I still have the same question, but I've implemented an alternative approach that seems to work just fine:

Set nodeKeySet = treeCache.get(fqn);
MyObject myObject = null;

if (nodeKeySet != null && nodeKeySet.size() > 0) {
 // I have my reasons for preferring a list to a Set
 List nodeKeyList = new ArrayList(nodeKeySet);
 String key = "";

 // Not precisely the termination condition...
 for (int i = 0; i < nodeKeyList.size(); i++) {
 key = (String)nodeKeyList.get(i);
 myObject = (MyObject)treeCache.get(fqn, key);
 ...
 }
 ...
}

Please let me know if others out there have similar logic or if I've done something totally bizarre or wrong.

TIA,
TTT

[belaban]

I have added those 2 methods. Note though that we may deprecate direct access to a Node in the future since you're bypassing the interceptors...
Also, in 1.3, we will change TreeCache (the class) into Cache (the interface).