ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raja Nagendra Kumar <>
Subject Re: FileSet with copy fails with NPE..
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:00:57 GMT

Steve Loughran wrote:
> Raja Nagendra Kumar wrote:
>> Pl. find the fix for the same in ProjectComponent
>> We are defining a GOBAL_DEFAULT_PROJECT which would be same as the first
>> non
>> null setProject call parameter.
>> getProject() value on any tag if null, the non null GOBAL_DEFAULT_PROJECT
>> value is assumed with debug log message saying about this assumption.
> No, this is lethal. 
> Agreed.. This fix was made with intention of supporting some default
> project, without clearly knowing the significance project object. thanks
> to the team pointing out this very clearly..
>>An NPE is a validity check to ensure that every task has an owning 
>>project. Not a friendly one, but one that certainly halts the app with a 
>>stack trace.  
> nope.. this can't be the way once wishes to use ant.. as the stack traced
> points to source code of ant and the source code of users. One has to
> spend at least hours..(in my case 3 hours) to figure out this..
> Better message always make the usablity of the product in genral a breeze.
> Having said that, Ant is great.. 
>>Its something the developers get to see, usually the first 
>>time a task tries to log something. by the time the end users get to see 
>>it, it should have been fixed. That's the one nice thing about NPEs: 
>>they are hard to ignore.
> Agreed pl. see if this could be fixed in feature versions of ant with a
> proper message.
>>Tasks that create other tasks should bind them with 
>>bindToOwner(ProjectComponent). This ensures that not only is project 
>>picked up, the child task even picks up the same name in the logs.
> Still not clear, why should the custom task developer know these, when
> this could be automatically inherited due to ant extention.
> How does these extra calls of bindToOwner help custom task developers.. I
> would do these because you are asking me.. but I see no interest in
> developing simple extentions.. such as some kind of custom copy etc..
> To us API should take safe/straight assumptions (in this case of custom
> task, it is straigth due to my previous post explanation) without needing
> the users to know about sequence of api calls before he could actually do
> his work.
> I would love see safe assumption on this .. however I welcome any
> convencing explanation.
> Regards,
> Nagendra
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View this message in context:
Sent from the Ant - Dev mailing list archive at

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message