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=34314>. 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=34314 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-17 19:47 ------- Theoretically, I agree with the points you make and I assume (I'm not the original author) that this was an oversight when they were developed. Having said that, these classes have been working this way for nearly three years (since their original versions) and therefore allowing/returning null for a definition that is not found is also part of their contract and I would be unwilling to make any changes which might cause backward compatibity issues for people. As well as compatibility, this in my mind is a trivial issue and the fact that its taken three years before anyone reported a bug on this makes me think its not worth any further effort. Personally if I was developing a custom implementation I would just return null for a definition which is not found. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
