I was wondering if you could help me out. We have a few different
weblogic 6.1 environments, running SP4. Over the past few months,
each of these environments have been experiencing an issue which is
producing server 500 errors for the customers. The following error
is produced in weblogic. Thr
On 5/11/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No problem, its a minor contribution compared to your efforts to get a
1.3.x version out - thanks for that. Apologies if you think I'm being
a PITA.
I don't think that at all. We may differ on whether a particular
issue is reason enough t
I've added a proposed release announcement to the release plan for
Action 1.3.4. If you would like to highlight a new feature, or have
any other suggestions or corrections, (did I get the name right?) then
please help by updating the wiki page, or commenting on this thread.
* http://wiki.apache.
I always have a question:why we old webwork 2.2 users can't get "maintenance
releases even a fixed release".
Webwork2 wiki,cvs,and issue (switch to SAF2) are all closed.
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/t
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Struts Wiki" for change
notification.
The following page has been changed by WendySmoak:
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsActionRelease134
The comment on the change is:
Proposed release announcement, please contribute!
This could also be very useful for Strecks (www.strecks.org), which has
various extensions to Struts designed to work purely in a 1.5
environment. I'll try it out and let you know how I get on.
Phil
Don Brown wrote:
This is great news! Thanks for the detailed writeup, as it is very
encou
On 5/11/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should include the DTDs in some convenient place like "lib" in
the distro in *addition* to the previous comments on recommended
configuration practices. There's lots of documentation about valid options
in the DTD documents them
On 5/11/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:50 AM -0700 5/11/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
>I think it is much cleaner to have DTDs and other default XML files in
>the JAR, but sometimes it might not work.
>
>The hosting that I use for the samples, uses Tomcat 4.x, which
>supposedly
At 10:50 AM -0700 5/11/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
I think it is much cleaner to have DTDs and other default XML files in
the JAR, but sometimes it might not work.
The hosting that I use for the samples, uses Tomcat 4.x, which
supposedly should support SRV 2.3 and therefore it should be able to
On 5/11/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/11/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have taken some time to check out the 1.3.4 version today -
> upgrading my webapp to this version (was on 1.2.9) and the only other
> issue(s) I came up with is that we used to distribu
On 5/11/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since we now require Servlet 2.3, there's little reason to configure
tlds in web.xml, and there's no reason to keep a copy of
validator-rules.xml in WEB-INF when it can be loaded from
struts-core.jar.
We can include them in 'lib' in the next dis
On 5/11/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There you go again, replying just to me ;-)
Sorry Joe, but its the default address that comes up when I hit reply
- and I don't usually check the address when I reply to something sent
to the list.
I wondered why other people comment when I t
On 5/11/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/1/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/1/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > We also need to send the Wiki diffs to commits@ instead of [EMAIL
PROTE
On 5/11/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/11/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have taken some time to check out the 1.3.4 version today -
> upgrading my webapp to this version (was on 1.2.9) and the only other
> issue(s) I came up with is that we used to distribut
On 5/11/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have taken some time to check out the 1.3.4 version today -
upgrading my webapp to this version (was on 1.2.9) and the only other
issue(s) I came up with is that we used to distribute things like the
validator-rules.xml config and taglib t
This is great news! Thanks for the detailed writeup, as it is very encouraging
to see a project that was designed purely for 1.5 was able to be so quickly
transformed to run on 1.4.
Please keep us posted with any additional issues that arise.
Don
Tim Fennell wrote:
Hi All,
I remember a whi
Joe Germuska wrote:
I have taken some time to check out the 1.3.4 version today -
upgrading my webapp to this version (was on 1.2.9) and the only other
issue(s) I came up with is that we used to distribute things like the
validator-rules.xml config and taglib tlds in the lib directory. I
releaize
I have taken some time to check out the 1.3.4 version today -
upgrading my webapp to this version (was on 1.2.9) and the only other
issue(s) I came up with is that we used to distribute things like the
validator-rules.xml config and taglib tlds in the lib directory. I
releaize that these are now a
On 5/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/11/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, this is such a small issue to
> pull back an entire release is way overkill.
A release can't be vetoed. As long as there are more binding GAs than
binding something-elses, it's GA.
On 5/11/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> To summarise then my vote is beta because I believe I think we're
> introducing an uncessaey PITA for users upgrading and it will increase
> questions on the user list and put additional load on the Apache
> Servers.
I abs
On 5/11/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Furthermore, this is such a small issue to
pull back an entire release is way overkill.
A release can't be vetoed. As long as there are more binding GAs than
binding something-elses, it's GA. We each have earned the right to
express our own opin
Niall Pemberton wrote:
To summarise then my vote is beta because I believe I think we're
introducing an uncessaey PITA for users upgrading and it will increase
questions on the user list and put additional load on the Apache
Servers.
I absolutely disagree. To be GA quality, it doesn't have to
On 5/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember being involved -- it had to do with the version numbers not
> matching. It seems odd to use Struts Tiles 1.3 with a version 1.1
> DTD.
+1
There's a general expectation that the DTD
On 5/11/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow, Tim -- thanks for the thorough review. I expect my shop is
going to be on 1.4 for a while still, so I'm particularly interested
in compatibility.
Ditto. The people I'm working with now are still using Java 1.4 too.
-Ted.
--
On 5/1/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/1/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We also need to send the Wiki diffs to commits@ instead of [EMAIL
PROTECTED] Is
> > that something that someone here can fix, or d
On 5/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall, does Monday give you enough time? Calling the vote immediately
> was intended to encourage testing and evaluation, not to lock people
> out of the process by rushing it through.
As ment
At 7:48 AM -0400 5/11/06, Tim Fennell wrote:
I'd like to say that based on recent experience I think that's an
extremely viable option.
...
Wow, Tim -- thanks for the thorough review. I expect my shop is
going to be on 1.4 for a while still, so I'm particularly interested
in compatibility.
On May 10, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 5/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I missed the discussion where the 1.3 dtd was added - seems like its
actually identical to the 1.1 dtd - which IMO serves no purpose. I
would rather it was removed.
I remember being invol
Hi All,
I remember a while back that there was quite a bit of discussion
which Java version to make the primary version supported by SAF2 and
if it's 5, then how to support 1.4. Retrotranslator was mentioned as
one of the ways to support 1.4 without having to stay source-compatible.
I'd
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I remember being involved -- it had to do with the version numbers not
matching. It seems odd to use Struts Tiles 1.3 with a version 1.1
DTD.
+1
There's a general expectation that the DTD release number match the
product release number. If we
On 5/10/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We can always recall a release
We can reclassify the quality of a release, but once it hits the
mirrors, it hits the mirrors, so we can't "recall" it per se.
or throw out a new one if a major issue
has been found,
We can roll another 1.x rele
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall, does Monday give you enough time? Calling the vote immediately
was intended to encourage testing and evaluation, not to lock people
out of the process by rushing it through.
As mentioned elsewhere, a release is a process that is never "
On 5/10/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the next significant release, I'm fine with waiting the extra week.
As mentioned elsewhere, quality votes are not meant to be a permanent
judgment. If problems are found, we can recast our votes and
re-qualify the quality of the release. Ther
A created a new issue about this bug:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2873
2006/5/11, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 5/9/06, A. Alonso Dominguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi there!
>
> I'm trying to use the new struts-action framework, version 1.3.3 with
> tiles
> and
34 matches
Mail list logo
