Sorry this slipped by the first time...

I don't know of any way to do this.  Are these methods really not setters?  Why are the called setXXX if they aren't setting configuration parameters?

I'll try to find time to look further but have a lot of projects piling up.

david jencks

On Nov 26, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:

Did you get an answer for this problem? (being 7 days old and all)

You might want to post this to the geronimo mailing list for XBean.  It's really hard to get any answers from anyone except David Jencks and Dain Sundstrom.  You can also try the IRC channel.


On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:

as I have added some properies into the AbstractProtocolService class, I'm now trying to get them listed on the web site (documentation effort ...).

The problem I have is that all the setXXX() methods are immediately seen as configuration parameters, even if it's not the case.

We are using a generic XBean annotation :

* @org.apache.xbean.XBean
public class NtpServer extends AbstractProtocolService

which use reflection to construct the XSD file from the javaclass. What I would like to do is to remove the useless parameters from this XSD file when the maven-xbean-plugin is run. For instance, I don't want :
- DatagramAcceptor
- SocketAcceptor
- DirectoryService (we don't use it for the NtpServer)
- ServiceID (This is a technical info which will never change)
- ServiceName (This is a technical info which will never change)
- started (it's a protected boolean set by the server itself, no need to configure it)
- TransportProtocols

Anyone knows how to get those elements not generated as part of the XSD file ?

I have looked at the very sparse xbean doco, but didn't find anywhere something helpful. What I would like to do is to add some annotation to tell XBean not to use a setter as a configuration element. Or the opposite : declare all the configurable element in the top level class, telling xbean not to dig into the class and its parents for a new configurable element.

Is it possible ?

Thanks !

cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny