Details
-
Type:
Bug
-
Status:
Closed
-
Priority:
Blocker
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
-
Number of attachments :
Description
After a long ride into Pico and PicoExtras land, I finally got the integrationkit, servlet and webwork2 behaving as they should. There were a lot of small patches involved, mainly fixing bugs and correcting references.
Activity
Mathias Bogaert
made changes -
| Field | Original Value | New Value |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment | servlet.patch [ 11183 ] |
Attaching integrationkit.patch. Since Aslak put in the lifecycle (see version 1.3 of DefaultLifecycleContainerBuilder in CVS) into the reference, and not the container itself, the parent is also a lifecylce and not a container - this caused a ClassCastException.
Mathias Bogaert
added a comment - Attaching integrationkit.patch. Since Aslak put in the lifecycle (see version 1.3 of DefaultLifecycleContainerBuilder in CVS) into the reference, and not the container itself, the parent is also a lifecylce and not a container - this caused a ClassCastException. Mathias Bogaert
made changes -
| Attachment | integrationkit.patch [ 11184 ] |
Attaching webwork2.patch. Same problem as integrationkit. Getting the parent container threw ClassCastException, fixed it.
Mathias Bogaert
added a comment - Attaching webwork2.patch. Same problem as integrationkit. Getting the parent container threw ClassCastException, fixed it. Mathias Bogaert
made changes -
| Attachment | webwork2.patch [ 11185 ] |
Attaching my WebContainerAssembler as an example. I guess this is the preferred way of writing this? Also, I guess it should be the responsability of the assembler to put the scope into the container? See PICO-81.
Mathias Bogaert
added a comment - Attaching my WebContainerAssembler as an example. I guess this is the preferred way of writing this? Also, I guess it should be the responsability of the assembler to put the scope into the container? See PICO-81 . Mathias Bogaert
made changes -
| Attachment | WebContainerAssembler.java [ 11186 ] |
Thanks for your fixes Mathias. We're still a bit short on unit tests for these packages. We need to improve them!
The reason why I put the lifecycle in the reference and not the container is that I would like to deprecate DefaultLifecyclePicoContainer (and encourage the use of the more flexible adapter instead). This broke some stuff that you now have fixed 
Aslak Hellesøy
added a comment - Thanks for your fixes Mathias. We're still a bit short on unit tests for these packages. We need to improve them!
The reason why I put the lifecycle in the reference and not the container is that I would like to deprecate DefaultLifecyclePicoContainer (and encourage the use of the more flexible adapter instead). This broke some stuff that you now have fixed Aslak Hellesøy
made changes -
| Assignee | Aslak Hellesoy [ rinkrank ] | |
| Resolution | Fixed [ 1 ] | |
| Status | Open [ 1 ] | Closed [ 6 ] |
Attaching servlet.patch. Fixes issue with the scope object not being the HttpServletRequest but a String "request". This aligns it with the other scope objects (ServletContext and HttpSession). Also fixed problem with the reference being null (already killed before).