I can remove it if you wish, just thought it could be handy to have the option to set the new basename without changing the constructor, pojo alike, but eventually it was not needed after verification for possible updates on existent tests. 

Wrt to volatile, out of curiosity, do we have a policy for doing that for pojo like fields managed through accessors? Btw the setter was thought just as part of store init, before runtime, and possible concurrent use...

Brian Stansberry <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> @@ -87,6 +89,19 @@ public InMemoryNamingStore(final NamingEventCoordinator eventCoordinator) {
>          this.eventCoordinator = eventCoordinator;
>      }
>  
> +    @Override
> +    public Name getBaseName() throws NamingException {
> +        return baseName;
> +    }
> +
> +    /**
> +     * Sets the jndi base name of the store.
> +     * @param baseName
> +     */
> +    public void setBaseName(Name baseName) {
> +        this.baseName = baseName;
> +    }

I don't see this method being called anywhere. Also, shouldn't the field be volatile or otherwise made thread safe?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/4241/files#r3523047