For future reference... this in fact turned out to be a bug in my code. Under normal circumstances Tapestry will NOT attempt to perform parameter bindings when processing the EventLink. However, I accidentally left a line of code in my event handling method which referenced one of the parameters which was bound to the loop variable. The line of code was purely unnecessary, but it is what caused Tapestry to process the bindings, and thus trigger a null pointer exception. Once I removed that line of code, Tapestry was able to execute my method without any exceptions. Many thanks to those who offered the recommendations that eventually led me to locate my bug and resolve the problem.
-Nathan On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Nathan Kopp <nathan0...@nathankopp.com>wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < > thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:51:08 -0200, Nathan Kopp < >> nathan0...@nathankopp.com> wrote: >> >> This looks like a bug in your code, most probably by working in a T4-ish >>>> way in T5. >>>> >>> >>> Well, it's certainly a "bug" in that I'm trying to do something that T5 >>> doesn't seem to handle out-of-the-box. >>> >> >> I disagree. A bug is something that doesn't work like it should. In this >> case, it could be the lack of a feature, not a bug. Or just lack of T5 >> experience. :) > > > I have to laugh at the miscommunication happening here. Otherwise I'd get > frustrated. I was not trying to say it was a bug in Tapestry. It's a "bug > in my code" in the fact that I'm trying to use a nonexistent feature. And > I'm NOT suggesting that T5 should replay loops like T4. Tapestry has moved > beyond that and I have too. I am fully aware that Tapestry has introduced a > number of other features (page activation context, action context, and > formState) to take the place of replaying loops. I just haven't found the > "thing" that handles this particular use case. It actually might be there > but I just don't know. I do have a lack of T5 experience, as you point out. > So I am asking to see if anyone on this forum can help me to discover what > I'm missing. > >
