DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34063>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34063

           Summary: [modeler] Null Pointer Exception - Non-Singleton
                    Registry
           Product: Commons
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-
                    commons/modeler/src/java/org/apache/commons/modeler/Regi
                    stry.java?annotate=HEAD
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: blocker
          Priority: P2
         Component: Modeler
        AssignedTo: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
        ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


There are many instance methods in the Registry class that still refer to the
static singleton registry instance (registerComponent, findManagedBean, etc). 
This will end up causing a Null Pointer exception in applications that never
instantiate the singleton instance (through getRegistry).  In containers that
mix singleton and non-signleton instances, the behavior would be unexpected. 
I'm using the latest release, but from the looks of the HEAD in CVS this problem
still exists (line 816 for example).

It should be a pretty straight forward fix - search for the static registry
references, and if it's an instance method, replace 'registry' with 'this'
keyword.  

Since the Singleton Registry is deprecated (and for good reason ;-), this should
be considered a high priority issue.

Thanks.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

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

Reply via email to