DO NOT REPLY [Bug 17166] New: - HttpClient does not compile 'out of the box' in IBM's VisualAge IDE

[bu...@apache.org]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17166>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17166

HttpClient does not compile 'out of the box' in IBM's VisualAge IDE

           Summary: HttpClient does not compile 'out of the box' in IBM's
                    VisualAge IDE
           Product: Commons
           Version: 2.0 Alpha 2
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows NT/2K
            Status: NEW
          Severity: Normal
          Priority: Other
         Component: HttpClient
        AssignedTo: commons-httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org
        ReportedBy: d.tonhofer@m-plify.com


This was observed with IBM VisualAge 3.5, which runs JDK1.2.2:

Importing the HTTPClient source code into the IDE brings up a
compilation error in 

org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodBase.

The initialization of "private ResponseConsumedWatcher m_responseWatcher"
using an anyonymous inner class seems to cause some trouble. Implicated code:

private ResponseConsumedWatcher m_responseWatcher = new ResponseConsumedWatcher
() {
	public void responseConsumed() {
		responseBodyConsumed();
	}
};

The error message is: "Field initialization: The constructor invoked to create
org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodBase$1 with arguments () is not defined"

...but only in the context of HttpMethodBase(String uri) constructor, i.e.
the HttpMethodBase() constructor *can* be compiled, HttpMethodBase(String uri)
*cannot* be compiled with error "Cannot create constructor due to incorrect
field initialization".

I interpret this to mean that the compiler is looking for a parameterless
constructor for the anonymous class in the context of 
HttpMethodBase(String uri). The message did not really make sense to me. 
Checked the syntax, checked in the Language Definition whether setting up an
anonymous class like that is permitted; found nothing obviously wrong.

Fix:

The code above is equivalent to constructing the instance at the beginning
of each constructor of the enclosing class. A copy and paste of the
construction code into each of the two constructors fixes things...until
the next update.