Hi Nick,
Nicholas Lesiecki wrote:
Team, I hope I got my build problems resolved, and that my passing tests now
accurately reflect a successful build. If not I'll see what I can do
tomorrow morning...
At least here the full build is working again. Thanks!
--
Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
-
cmlenz 2003/06/26 15:15:28
Modified:framework/src/java/share/org/apache/cactus
RequestDirectives.java
Log:
Some cleanup, renamed addCactusCommand() to addDirective() and made it private, etc.
Revision ChangesPath
1.2 +45 -53
jakarta-cact
cmlenz 2003/06/26 15:14:01
Modified:framework/src/java/share/org/apache/cactus WebRequest.java
Log:
Remove unused variable
Revision ChangesPath
1.25 +1 -5
jakarta-cactus/framework/src/java/share/org/apache/cactus/WebRequest.java
Index: WebRequest.java
=
ndlesiecki2003/06/26 08:09:02
Modified:framework/src/test/share/org/apache/cactus
TestWebRequest.java
Added: framework/src/test/share/org/apache/cactus/util
UniqueGeneratorTest.java
framework/src/test/share/org/apache
ndlesiecki2003/06/26 08:07:56
Modified:framework/src/java/share/org/apache/cactus/client/connector/http
DefaultHttpClient.java
framework/src/java/share/org/apache/cactus WebRequest.java
AbstractWebServerTestCase.java
Added:
ndlesiecki2003/06/26 08:06:36
Modified:.checkstyle.xml
Log:
turned back on the check on private methods
CVS: --
CVS: PR:
CVS: If this change addresses a PR in the problem report tracking
CVS: data
Team, I hope I got my build problems resolved, and that my passing tests now
accurately reflect a successful build. If not I'll see what I can do
tomorrow morning...
Cheers,
nick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For a
Hey, thanks.
> etc. I wanted to say that it is not because I sent several emails that I
> do not view your code positively. Quite the opposite!
That's fine, I always welcome constructive criticism. Or even informational
criticism. I just wish we could pair. Email discussions are so inefficient!
I implemented your general suggestions. I'm afraid I didn't understand very
well what you meant by limiting the size of the key to 32 bits. By odd
coincidence, my generated ids end up at approx. 32 characters. I don't think
we should be too concerned about the exact number of bytes pushed about. If
Bizarrely, this does not fail on my box. Maybe if I were to run against a
another container... In any case, I made a change that I hope should fix it.
And the tests still pass. I'm making this change on the plane, so I can't DL
another container. Let me know if it works...
Cheers,
Nick
On 6/23/03
isplay:
[echo] - Cactus Servlet Sample 20030626 -
[echo] java.class.path =
/home/rubys/jakarta/xml-commons/java/external/build/xml-apis.jar:/home/rubys/jakarta/xml-xerces2/java/build/xmlParserAPIs.jar:/home/rubys/jakarta/xml-xerces2/java/build/xercesImpl.jar:.:/usr/java/j2sdk1.4.1_
isplay:
[echo] - Cactus Servlet Sample 20030626 -
[echo] java.class.path =
/home/rubys/jakarta/xml-commons/java/external/build/xml-apis.jar:/home/rubys/jakarta/xml-xerces2/java/build/xmlParserAPIs.jar:/home/rubys/jakarta/xml-xerces2/java/build/xercesImpl.jar:.:/usr/java/j2sdk1.4.1_
Lesiecki Nicholas wrote:
What do you all think of generating the uniqueId on the server side? The
question of uniqueness then becomes much, much easier. We could simply
store the id in a cookie cactus_test_id (like jsessionid) and have
subsequent requests pull the value of the cookie from the respo
13 matches
Mail list logo