Fixed issue #691: properties from extension jnlp are not set. #894
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi,
This PR aims to fix the following open issue: #691: properties from extension jnlp are not set.
It does so by recursively visiting JNLP files referenced as extensions in the resources section to prepare a list of properties to be set all at once during an application's initialization phase.
The main benefit this approach is its simplicity while guaranteeing that properties will be set before code in the application (including in extensions) is executed, as mandated by the JNLP specification (JCP 56).
It does have the side effect of requesting the parsing - and therefore the download before that - of all JNLP files in the hierarchy. I have not observed that to be an issue in practice (jars and other resources should not be downloaded if not marked as "eager"), but it is something to keep in mind.
Also, while this PR explicitly addresses the issue in ITW 1.8, I indented to port that fix to the current 2.0 branch, but it appears that the method I rely on on to resolve nested JNLP files has been removed; could someone explain the reason behind this removal (or point me in the direction of a document that does)? Thanks.