On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we still need a way to grab all of the sources that match that
> library. That was simple with 1.2 because we used the version tag. It should
> be as simple for 1.3 using the ordinal for the library as the tag.
$ svn co
https://svn.apach
May I kindly recommend how unclear this version naming scheme appears to even
the Struts
committers? I cannot think of any other open source project that is trying to
divide sub-projects
into different versions, which is, not to be confusing, not the same as the
version number of the
packaged re
On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Struts Action Framework - The framework in general, including all relevant
> subprojects
We agreed to rename the subproject formally known as "Core" as
"Action", which we also refer to as the Struts Action Framework. But,
I never took that t
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is the Struts Action Library what the Struts Classic release page on the
> > wiki is about? If not, I'm now quite confused about what Struts Action
> > Framework, Struts Action Library and
On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the Struts Action Library what the Struts Classic release page on the
> wiki is about? If not, I'm now quite confused about what Struts Action
> Framework, Struts Action Library and Struts Classic are.
>From the release plan:
* Struts Clas
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another way of looking at it is that such a tag would be capturing the
> > same information as the Maven POM... The main value of a tag is to allow
> > someone to check out all the code fo
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, if we're saying that in order to update the Struts Action library
> with the new Taglib 1.3.1 JAR, I have to checkout a certain revision
> of six other subprojects so that we can do a complex tag, I'm suddenly
> going to find something else
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another way of looking at it is that such a tag would be capturing the
> > same information as the Maven POM... The main value of a tag is to allow
> > someone to check out all the code fo
On 2/17/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another way of looking at it is that such a tag would be capturing the
> same information as the Maven POM... The main value of a tag is to allow
> someone to check out all the code for a given release at once. Checking
> out just action and le
Another way of looking at it is that such a tag would be capturing the
same information as the Maven POM... The main value of a tag is to allow
someone to check out all the code for a given release at once. Checking
out just action and letting Maven pull the release jars for the other
sub-proje
Did we tag current for the Struts-Shale_1.0.0 and
Struts-Scripting_1.0.0 releases?
For the Action Library, right now, I'm only planning to post the JARs
(including external dependencies), which are all self-tagged for the
appropriate release.
Conceptually, I'm thinking of the Library as the set o
On 2/17/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did we tag every subproject? Including 'current'? Maybe I just
> missed it.
I didn't see a tag for current... but there is no trunk/branches/tags
directory structure there, either.
It seems to me that we need a tag for (something like)
AC
Did we tag every subproject? Including 'current'? Maybe I just
missed it.
--
James Mitchell
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
Skype: jmitchtx
On Feb 17, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still need to assembl
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still need to assemble the appropriate JARS into a Struts-Action
> distribution, but we're otherwise through Checklist A now. I'll try to
> mop that up tonight. But, at this point, the seven Classic subproject
> builds are tagged, rolled, and u
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I'll tag and roll the test builds first thing in the morning then.
I still need to assemble the appropriate JARS into a Struts-Action
distribution, but we're otherwise through Checklist A now. I'll try to
mop that up tonight. But, at this poi
On 2/16/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So where do we stand? Ted, are you saying you still have time to do
> the seven 1.3.0 test builds as long as you don't have to re-do the
> testing due to changes? If so, we have the votes, go for it. :)
OK, I'll tag and roll the test builds fi
On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If some people feel these patches are a problem, then we can always
> > keep Action 1.3.0 as a test-build, until someone has time to apply
> > them and roll an Action 1.3.1 (note that th
Laurie Harper wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
On 2/16/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we think this is serious enough to warrant a 1.2.9 release, then
it makes
little sense to me to tag 1.3.0 without it. Otherwise, all we're
saying is
"hurrah, we tagged the tree, but oh, you probably
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Its down to whether you're hoping 1.3.0 makes "GA" quality or not. If
> > we want to give it a chance of "GA" then we should fix them now. If we
> > just want to get a milestone out ther
On Thu, February 16, 2006 1:09 pm, Martin Cooper said:
> As for the point of releasing 1.3 at all, which I think you are actually
> asking rather than almost asking, ;-) it brings a new way of working with
> the Struts 1 line, and a new way of customising it, that could be highly
> beneficial to ma
On 2/16/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, February 16, 2006 12:34 pm, Martin Cooper said:
> > As for 1.1, personally, I _do_ see 1.2 as making 1.1 "obsolete", so I
> > don't
> > see a need to update that as well. And I would expect 1.3 to make
> > 1.2"obsolete" in time, t
Ted Husted wrote:
On 2/16/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we think this is serious enough to warrant a 1.2.9 release, then it makes
little sense to me to tag 1.3.0 without it. Otherwise, all we're saying is
"hurrah, we tagged the tree, but oh, you probably don't want to use this
On 2/16/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we think this is serious enough to warrant a 1.2.9 release, then it makes
> little sense to me to tag 1.3.0 without it. Otherwise, all we're saying is
> "hurrah, we tagged the tree, but oh, you probably don't want to use this
> because there
On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its down to whether you're hoping 1.3.0 makes "GA" quality or not. If
> we want to give it a chance of "GA" then we should fix them now. If we
> just want to get a milestone out there then carry on. I don't mind
> either way.
In six years, w
[Slightly OT]
Has 1.3 proper docs explaining how CoR works? Has CoR changed since
last autumn? Does CoR MailReader reflect all cool CoR features? I am
sorry, I just seem to have crawled from under the rock, still using
1.2.x branch. Would be great if someone pointed out to the docs (on
Apache site
On Thu, February 16, 2006 12:34 pm, Martin Cooper said:
> As for 1.1, personally, I _do_ see 1.2 as making 1.1 "obsolete", so I
> don't
> see a need to update that as well. And I would expect 1.3 to make
> 1.2"obsolete" in time, too.
I don't disagree, but isn't it true that 1.3 won't make anything
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If someone is going to manage a 1.2.9 release, then, yes, it would
> make sense for someone to make the necessary changes to 1.3 before we
> mark it GA. (It just isn't going to be me.)
>
> But, if we are doing this because it's a security hole (
Ted Husted wrote:
If some people feel these patches are a problem, then we can always
keep Action 1.3.0 as a test-build, until someone has time to apply
them and roll an Action 1.3.1 (note that the other six subprojects
would *not* have to tagged and rolled again, only the one we change).
The im
On Thu, February 16, 2006 10:34 am, Joe Germuska said:
> If people agree with some of the recent concerns about the API, like
> the naming and responsibility of the ActionContext class, then they
> could vote to mark the release merely Alpha -- but that doesn't mean
> there shouldn't be a release.
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If someone is going to manage a 1.2.9 release, then, yes, it would
> make sense for someone to make the necessary changes to 1.3 before we
> mark it GA. (It just isn't going to be me.)
>
> But, if we are doing this because it's a security hole (an
If someone is going to manage a 1.2.9 release, then, yes, it would
make sense for someone to make the necessary changes to 1.3 before we
mark it GA. (It just isn't going to be me.)
But, if we are doing this because it's a security hole (and I don't
agree it is), then we should also patch and re-re
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, we're back down to two patches that could be applied this weekend.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
>
> After resolving these items, I'd like to tag and roll the 1.3.0
> release on Monday Feburary 13.
>
> There would
A whole-hearted +1 and an AMEN to boot!
Don
Joe Germuska wrote:
I think it's fine if Struts 1.3.0 is understood to not be expected to
reach GA status. I think we should go ahead and cut the release, and
expect that it will be "beta" at best. I don't think the issues Niall
raised are things
On 2/16/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, I didn't catch the DOS hole... can someone point me at the
> appropriate ticket?
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
If you drop the 1.2 Branch version of upload.jsp into the Struts 1.2.8
version of the exa
At 10:06 AM -0500 2/16/06, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
On Thu, February 16, 2006 9:45 am, Niall Pemberton said:
My view is that this is "security hole" that we are fixing, not adding
a new feature. I also think that the original RequestProcessor and
TilesRequestProcessor offer people a way of up
Non-binding +1 to tagging the repository. Sorry for the late response.
Greg
On Feb 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
A release plan is a majority vote, so we need three binding +1s
from PMC members and more binding +1s than -1s. A +1 here is on the
tagging the repository.
On Thu, February 16, 2006 9:45 am, Niall Pemberton said:
> My view is that this is "security hole" that we are fixing, not adding
> a new feature. I also think that the original RequestProcessor and
> TilesRequestProcessor offer people a way of upgrading to 1.3 and use
> tried and tested code - wit
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've now tested the applications with the legacy RP and updated the
> Release Notes as to the new "Opt-In Cancel Handler".
>
> As this point, I'd rather not update the legacy RP to support Opt-In
> Cancel Handling. If we make any further changes t
I've now tested the applications with the legacy RP and updated the
Release Notes as to the new "Opt-In Cancel Handler".
As this point, I'd rather not update the legacy RP to support Opt-In
Cancel Handling. If we make any further changes to this feature, or
any other new feature, we'd have to main
I think the fact that some committers are building code for their personal
use and have already personally "committed" it is not a good reason to roll
out a bad idea.
On 2/15/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/15/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/14/06, Paul
For my part, I don't think haste because things are late is a good idea. Do
it right and have a good product.
On 2/15/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it the intention of the Struts commiters to
> > make a Command somethin
On 2/15/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it the intention of the Struts commiters to
> > make a Command something like a new Action that should be used instead?
> > Or are you expecting commands to be created solely for the re
On 2/15/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK I did both of those - hopefully I didn't miss anything important.
> Most were pretty trivial - except for highlighting the new
> dependencies, especially Servlet 2.3 and JDK 1.4 and of course Wendy
> joining the PMC :-)
Thanks. We probabl
On 2/15/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/15/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you want any help with the release notes - or anything else? Let me know.
>
> If anyone wanted to pop-in and update the release notes from November
> to now, that would be great. The on
Ted Husted wrote:
Some people have suggested that Command replace Action ...
.
Personally, I favor using Commands the way WebWork/Action2 uses
Interceptors ...
(spin)
Oh yeah. That one signature can do anything.
.V
-
On 2/15/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you want any help with the release notes - or anything else? Let me know.
If anyone wanted to pop-in and update the release notes from November
to now, that would be great. The only other thing I wanted to do was
fix the links from Site t
Joe, thanks for the feedback. Since you could do all those controller related
settings in 1.2 if
you knew where to look, putting them all in the ActionContext kind-of raises
the IQ of the
command/action. It's an advertisement of internal features, so to speak, and I
don't really
believe, as I sa
Ted, please make sure you patch the original RP for InvalidCancelException in
1.3 before you tag.
I included a patch already. Someone has to test it (good practice) but the
change is
identicial/trivial.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mai
At 8:13 PM -0800 2/14/06, Paul Benedict wrote:
>> But I noticed the ActionContext is mainly for the request
processor and looks like it contains
TOO much data that would never be exposed to an action class to use.
I may have misunderstood but I'd like for someone to clarify.
I find it ver
On 2/15/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't have any discretionary time last night, but, hopefully, I can
> wrap up the review of the Release Notes tonight. We can then tag the
> repository for STRUTS_1_3_0 as well as for each of the subprojects
> (STRUTS_ACTION_1_3_0 ... STRUTS_TI
On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it the intention of the Struts commiters to
> make a Command something like a new Action that should be used instead?
> Or are you expecting commands to be created solely for the request processor
> chain?
Some people have suggested that C
>> But I noticed the ActionContext is mainly for the request processor and
>> looks like it contains
TOO much data that would never be exposed to an action class to use.
I may have misunderstood but I'd like for someone to clarify.
I find it very strange that the ActionContext would allow a
On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, I noticed the 1.3 API docs are built using Java 5. Is 1.3 Java 5
> compliant?
> I didn't think this was the case so please make sure those are being built
> with
> the right compiler.
> If you go to this link, you will notice th
All,
I have some concerns about the Struts 1.3 branch.
First, I noticed the 1.3 API docs are built using Java 5. Is 1.3 Java 5
compliant? I didn't think this was the case so please make sure those are
being built with the right compiler. If you go to this link, you will notice
the M
a bit late, but +1
--
James Mitchell
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
Skype: jmitchtx
On Feb 14, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
I'm through the applications, and so now it's just a final review of
the release note, and then we can start down the Checklist A of th
I'm through the applications, and so now it's just a final review of
the release note, and then we can start down the Checklist A of the
Plan.
-Ted.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EM
On 2/14/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If no one shouts in the next hour, I'm going to fix this.
>
> I'm in the middle of the final testing of the build as it stands now,
> and I would prefer that there be no more changes.
OK
On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If no one shouts in the next hour, I'm going to fix this.
I'm in the middle of the final testing of the build as it stands now,
and I would prefer that there be no more changes.
-Ted.
---
On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my take on it:
>
> I think fixing RequestUtils to bypass the multipart property is a patch. I
> say that because it's a pointed solution to a specific problem. If we look
> at this as a temporary fix, I am okay with that because it
Here's my take on it:
I think fixing RequestUtils to bypass the multipart property is a patch. I
say that because it's a pointed solution to a specific problem. If we look at
this as a temporary fix, I am okay with that because it does provide a
solution and then it can be replaced with
On 2/14/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, we're making some progress. The Cancellable code is in, and I'm
> testing the example applications again, updating the configurations as
> needed for the cancellable property. After that, it's a final pass on
> the Relesae Notes (since Novembe
OK, we're making some progress. The Cancellable code is in, and I'm
testing the example applications again, updating the configurations as
needed for the cancellable property. After that, it's a final pass on
the Relesae Notes (since November)., and we should be able to roll
each of the seven subpr
At 10:24 AM -0800 2/13/06, Don Brown wrote:
+1 Lets just get something out the door already :)
+1 and amen
--
Joe Germuska
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try som
>From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> OK, we're back down to two patches that could be applied this weekend.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
>
> After resolving these items, I'd like to tag and roll the 1.3.0
> release on Monday Feburary 13.
>
> There would b
+1 Lets just get something out the door already :)
Don
On 11/21/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are two significant items left on the Struts Action Library
> 1.3.0 (aka Struts Classic) release plan before we would tag and roll
> it. One is renaming struts-action to struts-cor
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, we're back down to two patches that could be applied this weekend.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
>
> After resolving these items, I'd like to tag and roll the 1.3.0
> release on Monday Feburary 13.
>
> There wou
+1
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:56 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
OK, we're back down to two patches that could be applied this weekend.
*
If you were able to work something up today, that would be great.
Otherwise, I'll cobble something up in the morning.
On 2/11/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted, are you working on the 1.3 cancel patch? I don't want to duplicate work
> you're already doing. Please say if you're alr
I was confusing DOS Attack with "Multipart Command Implementation"
#38613. I see from the updated notes that you'd prefer to leave that
for 1.3.1.
As for DOS Attack, since there is not a clear fix, we should also
leave that for 1.3.1, or whenever we are ready to commit to a fix.
-Ted.
On 2/11/0
On 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have a patch for #38534 - my proposed changes for #38613
> includes fixing #38534. Did you mean commit #38613?
If you can commit the code to resolve "DOS attack, application hack",
I'll make the necessary changes to resolve "Validati
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm going to try and do a quick review of the bugs not on the release plan.
>
> Under the heading "first things first", could you commit the patch for
> #38534, then I can address #38374,
On 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to try and do a quick review of the bugs not on the release plan.
Under the heading "first things first", could you commit the patch for
#38534, then I can address #38374, to clear the tickets that are
already on the release plan.
Ted, are you working on the 1.3 cancel patch? I don't want to duplicate work
you're already doing. Please say if you're already in the middle. I can help
out with other things if you need them. -- Paul
-
Brings words and photos together (easily)
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, we're back down to two patches that could be applied this weekend.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
When I run a report of open bugs (i.e. non-enhancements) for the
components in 1.3 it produces a list of 44 bugs -
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, we're back down to two patches that could be applied this weekend.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
>
> After resolving these items, I'd like to tag and roll the 1.3.0
> release on Monday Feburary 13.
>
> There woul
OK, we're back down to two patches that could be applied this weekend.
* http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
After resolving these items, I'd like to tag and roll the 1.3.0
release on Monday Feburary 13.
There would be a 1.3.0 release for each of the seven dwarfs, and a
"Librar
On 11/30/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On 11/30/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >>> On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > N
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 11/30/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Also looked like the property types were the wrong way roun
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 11/30/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Also looked like the property types were the wrong way roun
On 11/30/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> Also looked like the property types were the wrong way round for
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Also looked like the property types were the wrong way round for
indexed methods, so I also switched them.
Hmm, with that change, accessi
On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > Also looked like the property types were the wrong way round for
> > > indexed methods, so I also switched them.
> >
> > Hmm, with that change, accessing
On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > Also looked like the property types were the wrong way round for
> > indexed methods, so I also switched them.
>
> Hmm, with that change, accessing a List property is broken. Without the
> change, all my tests are wo
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Also looked like the property types were the wrong way round for
indexed methods, so I also switched them.
Hmm, with that change, accessing a List property is broken. Without the
change, all my tests are working. You can deploy the exercises app with
the addition I just
On 11/27/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > project rather than core. At the moment I'm -0 on this feature because it
> > doesn't have any JUnit tests - if tests are added I'd change that to a +0!
>
> Niall, are you comfortable with just a test page in the exe
Niall Pemberton wrote:
project rather than core. At the moment I'm -0 on this feature because it
doesn't have any JUnit tests - if tests are added I'd change that to a +0!
Niall, are you comfortable with just a test page in the exercises app? I
have that almost ready to commit; I just have to
I've had a look at Commons Resources and am prepared to put in some time to
improve the Resources Site and clean up javadoc warnings so that its ready
for a release.
I may be able to find time to do the release, but not sure yet.
Niall
- Original Message -
From: "Rahul Akolkar" <[EMAIL
On 11/22/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Can we not remove these for now and bring them back in if/when Commons
> > > Resource gets released?
>
> Let's just release Commons Resources and be done with it. There are
> three tick
22, 2005 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
On 11/22/05, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we not remove these for now and bring them back in if/when Commons
> Resource gets released?
Let's just release Commons Resour
On 11/22/05, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can we not remove these for now and bring them back in if/when Commons
> > Resource gets released?
Let's just release Commons Resources and be done with it. There are
three tickets, one is a feature request, one is a class diagram
(documen
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
I'm -1 at this point because of the Commons Resource dependency - I don't
think we should be rolling a build w
I'm -1 at this point because of the Commons Resource dependency - I don't
think we should be rolling a build with unreleased software. From what I can
see there are just three classes in the extras sub-project that need this.
Can we not remove these for now and bring them back in if/when Commons
Re
There are two significant items left on the Struts Action Library
1.3.0 (aka Struts Classic) release plan before we would tag and roll
it. One is renaming struts-action to struts-core, and the other are
minor changes to the documentation.
* http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
At
93 matches
Mail list logo
