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: | URLMapper.findFileObject(url) returns null | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | platform | Reporter: | Jiri Skrivanek <jskrivanek> |
Component: | Module System | Assignee: | Jesse Glick <jglick> |
Status: | VERIFIED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | blocker | CC: | jtulach, mmirilovic, pnejedly, rmatous |
Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | REGRESSION |
Version: | 6.x | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows XP | ||
Issue Type: | DEFECT | Exception Reporter: | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 127240 | ||
Attachments: | Test module. |
Description
Jiri Skrivanek
2008-02-13 09:44:20 UTC
Created attachment 56580 [details]
Test module.
BTW, it might be somehow related to issue 126602. Caused by: http://hg.netbeans.org/main/rev/63497 by implementing: http://wiki.netbeans.org/StartupCache No registered URLMapper for nbjcl protocol Well, was it ever specified that you can access internal module data as FileObjects? Most of such use cases do export the file in question through layerFS, which is specified to work correctly. While it would be possible to either provide URLMapper implementation that would forward nbjcl: accesses to appropriate JarFS, or to make the class loader provide (and serve for URL based requests) jar: URLs, I'd rather remove all such use cases. The reason is simple: jar-per-module is about the worst possible deployment formats for number of reasons. If we one day get to implementing better format, we'd need to provide a special filesystem implementation that would allow processing such (rare) requests. My guess is that we do not want to support access to module JAR content as FileObjects. It really seems accidental that it even worked. That is why I suggest a note about incompatible change in module system and wontfix. Jesse, do you agree, will you do it? Agreed, this is something we can probably do without. #e6d9babd282b Verified. x *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 129772 *** Verified. |