This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
Summary: | <java input="..."> does not work when run inside IDE | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | projects | Reporter: | maximvk <maximvk> |
Component: | Ant | Assignee: | Jesse Glick <jglick> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | blocker | Keywords: | REGRESSION |
Priority: | P3 | ||
Version: | 6.x | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Issue Type: | DEFECT | Exception Reporter: | |
Bug Depends on: | 194151 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 112839 |
Description
maximvk
2007-11-08 20:47:10 UTC
Seems to be an unwanted side-effect of issue #112839, itself an emergency fix for a regression introduced by the fix of issue #56341 (which did not break input). Trivial test case: <project default="x"> <target name="x"> <echo file="${java.io.tmpdir}/X.java"> public class X { public static void main(String[] a) throws Exception { System.out.println("got: " + new java.io.BufferedReader( new java.io.InputStreamReader(System.in)).readLine()); } } </echo> <javac srcdir="${java.io.tmpdir}" destdir="${java.io.tmpdir}" includes="X.java"/> <java fork="true" classpath="${java.io.tmpdir}" classname="X" inputstring="some text"/> </target> </project> Reproducible but I have no clue how to fix it without reverting issue #112839. Readding e.g. in.close(); out.flush(); is not enough; really seem to need out.close() (why, I don't know). I think fixed in core-main #e19aa1d5af47. Integrated into 'main-golden', will be available in build *200811191401* on http://bits.netbeans.org/dev/nightly/ (upload may still be in progress) Changeset: http://hg.netbeans.org/main/rev/e19aa1d5af47 User: Jesse Glick <jglick@netbeans.org> Log: #121512: handle input="..." or inputstring="..." on <java>. Reporter - if you have a moment to check whether the fix works for you (in a 7.0 development build, or 7.0 Milestone 1) that would be great. Just mark VERIFIED (or reopen if it does not work). It might be a candidate for a 6.5 patch release, though I have not heard any other reports of this problem (since the fix of issue #112839 in 6.0, which was the likely cause). |