Details
Bug
Closed
Critical
Activity
I misinterpreted the effects of java.awt.headless. I thought the usage of the system property would tell the compiler barking using awt classes. Rereading the docs I recognized, that the property allows the usage of a lot awt/swing classes without an attached display. I've set it up now in the global properties and the build runs fine now for DC without changing the code (despite some new site generation problem).
Aslak, close this issue, if you're pleased. Otherwise comment if we should still change the test code.
Jörg Schaible
added a comment - I misinterpreted the effects of java.awt.headless. I thought the usage of the system property would tell the compiler barking using awt classes. Rereading the docs I recognized, that the property allows the usage of a lot awt/swing classes without an attached display. I've set it up now in the global properties and the build runs fine now for DC without changing the code (despite some new site generation problem).
Aslak, close this issue, if you're pleased. Otherwise comment if we should still change the test code. Mauro Talevi
made changes -
| Field | Original Value | New Value |
|---|---|---|
| Environment | ||
| Assignee | Aslak Hellesoy [ rinkrank ] | Mauro Talevi [ maurotalevi ] |
| Fix Version/s | 1.0 [ 10148 ] |
Is the url mentionned in the description still reachable somehow?
Otherwise, the testcase is probably very simply changeable, I guess the point of using a JButton in there was to have a "complex" component with more than 1 property ?
Grégory Joseph
added a comment - Is the url mentionned in the description still reachable somehow?
Otherwise, the testcase is probably very simply changeable, I guess the point of using a JButton in there was to have a "complex" component with more than 1 property ? @greg: Nope. But with java.awt.headless there was no problem anymore. And remember: we might start once a nano-gui with the components from swt/swing anyway ...
Jörg Schaible
added a comment - @greg: Nope. But with java.awt.headless there was no problem anymore. And remember: we might start once a nano-gui with the components from swt/swing anyway ... So err.. can we close this? 
Grégory Joseph
added a comment - So err.. can we close this? Fixed and Aslak did not complain for the last 6 months )
Jörg Schaible
added a comment - Fixed and Aslak did not complain for the last 6 months ) Jörg Schaible
made changes -
| Resolution | Fixed [ 1 ] | |
| Status | Open [ 1 ] | Closed [ 6 ] |
For picocontainer I ensured this some time ago (project.properties 1.23), but I did not do the same for the global project.properties, since swing and swt obviously cannot stay without. We might add the same properties for all other subprojects on an individual base though.