Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-user-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 19697 invoked from network); 28 May 2002 20:47:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 28 May 2002 20:47:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 16256 invoked by uid 97); 28 May 2002 20:46:59 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16208 invoked by uid 97); 28 May 2002 20:46:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Users List" Reply-To: "Ant Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16196 invoked by uid 98); 28 May 2002 20:46:58 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Message-ID: <01c801c20688$cb5046f0$6401a8c0@darden.virginia.edu> From: "Erik Hatcher" To: "Ant Users List" References: <20020528152101.82087.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Trouble with PropertyFile Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:46:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I've just committed a fix for this bug, complete with identifying test case and all. Those of you running the latest 1.5 from the 1.5 CVS branch can now give it a shot, and please report back to me if you still encounter issues. Erik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diane Holt" To: "Ant Users List" Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:21 AM Subject: RE: Trouble with PropertyFile > --- "Sayatovic, Brian" wrote: > > OK< I see that it is a bug -- and I didn't realized someone had updated > > the shared ant installation to 1.5.9 (I thought it was still 1.4.1). > > > > But is the bug that it doesn't check for null, or that the value isn't > > getting set? > > Yes, that's the question -- and it's why I haven't put my fix through yet > (well that, and not having dealt with the testcases). Adding the test for > null stops the hitting of the NPE, but is it the real fix, or is there a > bug before that point that should actually be the fix (so that "value" > would never be null at that point)? I don't have the time at the moment > to walk through all that code to find the answer, so if you (or anyone > else) would like to, that'd be great. > > Diane > > ===== > (holtdl@yahoo.com) > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > For additional commands, e-mail: > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: