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.

Bug 197896 - project.ant should support projects that are not based on java.io.File
Summary: project.ant should support projects that are not based on java.io.File
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 193249
Alias: None
Product: projects
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Ant Project (show other bugs)
Version: 7.0
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Assignee: Milos Kleint
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-04-20 10:38 UTC by Vladimir Kvashin
Modified: 2013-09-06 07:36 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Vladimir Kvashin 2011-04-20 10:38:22 UTC 
Now project.ant does not support projects that are not based on java.io.File.

CND needs to be able to open projects that reside on remote file system; CND projects use project.ant (mainly because they need configurations functionality that is supported by ant project)
Comment 1 Jesse Glick 2011-04-20 15:20:40 UTC 
I could have sworn this was already filed (with a patch?), but I cannot find it now.

Certain parts of project.ant, such as project.xml read/write, ought to work equally well with any filesystem implementation. Other parts dealing with properties or build scripts - really using Ant semantics - can only work with java.io.File.

While as a short-term workaround it should be possible to relax restrictions on the former parts, the module was never intended to support non-Ant-based projects (hence the name). The better solution is to refactor the module into two, probably moving the Ant-specific half into the java cluster. The part in the ide cluster would just implement functionality for projects with IDE-defined metadata.
Comment 2 Jesse Glick 2011-04-21 15:19:14 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> I could have sworn this was already filed (with a patch?), but I cannot find it
> now.

bug #193249 comment #16
Comment 3 Milos Kleint 2013-09-06 07:36:11 UTC 
so isn't this a duplicate of issue 193249?

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 193249 ***