DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-13 12:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=7793)
Replaces previous 2 patches, comments taken into account, extended with more 
packages.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-12 19:44 ---
Currently I am also looking at packages types  - zip, and I think about marking
some methods and classes deprecated for their only purpose is to work around 1.1
- 1.2 differences, is this ok?

Further I would like to bring up the question if it is really good to introduce
WeakishReference in 1.6 (at least according to the @since tags in the code). As
1.6 need not compile against 1.1 and the only purpose of this class (and
WeakishReference12 is to work around a 1.1 / 1.2 difference. (I would definetely
have marked it deprecated if it is ok to mark them deprecated, but it seems a
bit silly to introduce a new class in a new release that is deprecated from the
start.)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-12 08:35 ---
Sorry I missed that part, I thought it could only be null for void or primitive
types. (Which AntClassLoader clearly isn't). 

I am updating and re-checking my patch.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-12 07:26 ---
> This one constructor that doesn't actually claims in the javadoc that the 
> parent
> is set to the classloader that loaded this class, as is done in setParent if 
> the
> parent == null.

and the javadocs of Class#getClassLoader

| Returns the class loader for the class. Some implementations may use null to
| represent the bootstrap class loader. This method will return null in such
| implementations if this class was loaded by the bootstrap class loader.

so for "some implementations" the parent may be null.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-12 07:17 ---
It seems, according to the javadoc to be a bug if parent == null, all
constructors (except for 1) use the setParent method always, which always sets
the parent to a non null value. 
This one constructor that doesn't actually claims in the javadoc that the parent
is set to the classloader that loaded this class, as is done in setParent if the
parent == null. So I also updated that constructor and removed all checks on
parent == null from the code (except for the one in the setParent).

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-12 07:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=7767)
improved patch with comments from conor taken into account

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-12 01:19 ---
Just a few comments on the AntClassLoader changes:

The initializeClass method is no longer used within Ant. Nevertheless it can be
upgraded. The change you have made is, however, not correct. There is no
guarantee that Class.forName is going to find the given class. You really need
to ask the class for its loader and then use that loader to load and initialise
the class, using the three arg version of Class.forName.

Your change to findBaseClass will fail if parent is null, which it can be.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 22326] - remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326

remove deprecated / 1.1 issues packages ant and ant.filters - ant.loader





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-08-11 21:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=7757)
Removes 1.1 constructs and deprecated method calls

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]