[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-4849?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16160514#comment-16160514
]
Mitth'raw'nuruodo edited comment on WW-4849 at 9/11/17 2:53 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
OK, if this change was really necessary, then:
- It should have been listed in the release notes as a breaking change;
- The documentation for how to write a custom object factory should have been
updated;
- There should have been a transitional period, with the no-arg constructor
present but deprecated, so that third parties could update their code;
- Ideally, critical security fixes should have been released separately;
- Note that according to
[regular|https://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html]
[Apache|https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html]
[versioning|https://hadoop.apache.org/versioning.html]
[policies|https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html], which typically
align with [semantic versioning|http://semver.org/], this change would
necessitate a major release, not a point release.
Should I assume, then, that the correct way to override {{ObjectFactory}} no
longer requires a default no-arg constructor in the subclass, and submit a pull
request to the Guice project on that basis?
was (Author: thrawnca):
OK, if this change was really necessary, then:
- It should have been listed in the release notes as a breaking change;
- The documentation for how to write a custom object factory should have been
updated;
- There should have been a transitional period, with the no-arg constructor
present but deprecated, so that third parties could update their code;
- Ideally, critical security fixes should have been released separately;
- Note that according to
[regular|https://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html]
[Apache|https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html]
[versioning|https://hadoop.apache.org/versioning.html]
[policies|https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html] and [semantic
versioning|http://semver.org/], this change would necessitate a major release,
not a point release.
Should I assume, then, that the correct way to override {{ObjectFactory}} no
longer requires a default no-arg constructor in the subclass, and submit a pull
request to the Guice project on that basis?
> ObjectFactory constructor signature change breaks extensions
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-4849
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-4849
> Project: Struts 2
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 2.5.13
> Reporter: Mitth'raw'nuruodo
> Fix For: 2.5.14
>
>
> Commit {{6f91d0776a545c911ca4f2875ed9976614711ef9}} changed the signature of
> the {{ObjectFactory}} constructor, breaking all classes that extend
> {{ObjectFactory}} (as per https://struts.apache.org/docs/objectfactory.html).
> This affects eg the [{{guice-servlet}} Struts plugin|
> https://github.com/google/guice/blob/master/extensions/struts2/src/com/google/inject/struts2/Struts2Factory.java].
> This was not listed on the [2.5.13 version
> notes|https://struts.apache.org/docs/version-notes-2513.html] as a breaking
> change, and breaking changes should preferably be avoided in critical
> security updates.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
