[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15095392#comment-15095392
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-1317:
--------------------------------------
Github user olegz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/169#discussion_r49540950
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-framework-bundle/nifi-framework/nifi-framework-core-api/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/controller/AbstractConfiguredComponent.java
---
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ public AbstractConfiguredComponent(final
ConfigurableComponent component, final
this.component = component;
this.validationContextFactory = validationContextFactory;
this.serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
+ this.name = new
AtomicReference<>(component.getClass().getSimpleName());
--- End diff --
That's kind of how it was and yes, this is me trying to "extract an answer
by force" ;). I don't see a reason why it would have to be initialized to null
while defaulting to class name in sub-class, but I also do see a "safety" point
in your comment. I am good either way. Do you think we need @markap14 or
anyone else to chip in with opinion?
> StandardProcessorNode hides 'name' instance variable defined in
> AbstractConfiguredComponent
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NIFI-1317
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1317
> Project: Apache NiFi
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.4.0
> Reporter: Oleg Zhurakousky
> Assignee: Oleg Zhurakousky
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.5.0
>
>
> The final instance of a component contains two instance variables called
> _name_ with different values
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
