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=31731>. 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=31731 ClassCastException from ActionServlet.getRequestProcessor() [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-27 21:51 ------- Adam, I can understand your frustration with the issue. My concern, though, is what happens to non-BEA users if your proposed change were implemented -- in particular in a cases where the developer makes a mistake and needs to figure out what happened. Consider, for example, what happens if the developer accidentally saves some other JavaBean with the key Globals.REQUEST_PROCESSOR_KEY ... today, they'll get a class cast exception that, between what it says (org.apache.struts.action.RequestProcessor) and where it occurs (inside a method named getProcessorForModule() will lead you pretty quickly to understand what happened. With your patch, though, this would throw a NullPointerException in the code that *called* getProcessorForModule() and then assumes its going to get a non-null response back. That is *much* harder to figure out, even if you do track it down to being inside this method. Trying to figure out why this conditional is there would be nearly impossible. So, I'm going to close this as WONTFIX -- not because I'm not sympathetic to your situation, but because the change would have negative effects on others who are not running WL 8.1. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
