On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Craig R. McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Nightly builds and Commons FileUpload
>
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 23:18:57 -0700
> > From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Nightly builds and Commons FileUpload
> >
> > I have a new Struts file upload implementation that I'll be ready to commit
> > within the next day or so. It's based on the Commons FileUpload component,
> > which is currently in the sandbox. I believe this new implementation will
> > resolve several of the outstanding bugs against Struts file upload.
> >
> > There are a few issues I'd like to resolve before I commit the new code.
> >
> > 1) I don't want to break the nightly builds by adding a dependency on
> > FileUpload without the nightly build "knowing" about it up front. Is there a
> > mechanism for updating the dependencies automatically, or is it just "tell
> > Craig"? ;-)
> >
>
> Since it's my script building the nightlies, that would be a good plan ...
> I'll set up the new dependency for Friday night's build.
>
This is now checked in. Building Struts from source now depends on
commons-fileupload and commons-resources, along with everything else.
I also updated the Gump descriptor -- hopefully correctly.
Craig
> > 2) The FileUpload build in Commons Sandbox is Maven-based. (Nothing to do
> > with me! :) Do I need to provide a non-Maven build.xml file before this can
> > be added to the Struts nightly builds?
> >
>
> I just need the "clean" and "dist" targets to be available. The one Maven
> created has a "dist" -- we should ping Jason about generating a "clean" as
> well. (I can patch around that in the meantime).
>
> > 3) Given two multipart implementations, we need to decide which one should
> > be the default. I'm tempted to set the new Commons-based implementation as
> > the default for Beta 2, so that we can obtain the maximum possible exposure
> > for it, and iron out any wrinkles. I believe this implementation will be
> > somewhat more robust. On the other hand, I could understand the opinion that
> > the default should remain unchanged, for compatibility reasons. I'd be
> > interested in hearing opinions either way.
> >
>
> How about if we make the new one default in the nightlies and let people
> try it a bit before we make that decision?
>
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
