I've got $0.25 that says it's probably some variable on a hashmap
internally, so I wouldn't count on it always being alphabetic, although you
could pretty much assume it won't happen in the same order they're on the
page :).
--- Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Savitsky, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:33 AM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Subject: Tapestry 3.0.3 - property initialization sequence
>
> Hi,
>
> Found a funny quirk in the way page properties are initialized, that can
> possibly lead to exceptions:
>
> Test.page:
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!DOCTYPE page-specification
> PUBLIC "-//Apache Software Foundation//Tapestry Specification
> 3.0//EN"
> "http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry/dtd/Tapestry_3_0.dtd
> <http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry/dtd/Tapestry_3_0.dtd> ">
> <page-specification class="org.apache.tapestry.html.BasePage">
> <property-specification name="p2"
> type="java.lang.Integer">1</property-specification>
> <property-specification name="p1"
> type="java.lang.Integer">p2.intValue() + 1</property-specification>
> </page-specification>
>
> Load the page, get an NPE. Reason? I went in with a debugger to check, and
> it looks like the properties are initialized in alphabetic order (so that
> "p1" is initialized BEFORE "p2"). Swap the variable names (so that "p2"
> depend on "p1", instead of the other way around), and the page loads fine.
>
> Am I missing something, or it is really being done that way? In this case,
> is it really the best way to handle that? Wouldn't a some sort of endless
> loop be better, so that initialization of "dependent" properties could be
> deferred until their "parent" properties are initialized?
>
> I haven't tried Tapestry 4 yet, does anyone know, was that... m-m-m...
> "feature" fixed there?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Savitsky
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
