You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> on 2008/04/10 08:27:13 UTC
Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem
Guys,
I've just submitted a patch to bring the S1 plugin pom up to 1.3.8 and I'm
getting the following compile error;
D:\Struts2\Build\struts2\plugins\struts1\src\main\java\org\apache\struts2\s1\WrapperModuleConfig.java:[41,0]
org.apache.struts2.s1.WrapperModuleConfig is not abstract and does not
override abstract method findActionConfigId(java.lang.String) in
org.apache.struts.config.ModuleConfig
D:\Struts2\Build\struts2\plugins\struts1\src\main\java\org\apache\struts2\s1\WrapperModuleConfig.java:[41,0]
org.apache.struts2.s1.WrapperModuleConfig is not abstract and does not
override abstract method findActionConfigId(java.lang.String) in
org.apache.struts.config.ModuleConfig
Could this indicate a problem with the S1 plugin thats currently up for
inclusion in S2.1.1?
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeromy Evans" <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: 2.1 build
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Jeromy Evans <
>> jeromy.evans@blueskyminds.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Understood. Can I sign and distribute Don's binaries[1] or *must* they
>>> be
>>> signed by the person that built them?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've lost track of why Don can't sign them himself, but I would consider
>> it
>> OK for you to do that if you use the following process:
>>
>> 1) Have Don e-mail you the binaries or otherwise get them to you in a way
>> that they could not be intercepted. (I don't consider you picking them up
>> from the URL below to be acceptable because there is a chance, however
>> slim,
>> that those binaries could have been compromised. And yes, I realise that
>> e-mail can in fact be intercepted as well, but if you guys coordinate
>> time-wise, I think that is an acceptable risk.)
>>
>> 2) You sign them, and mail the .asc files back to Don.
>>
>> 3) Don verifies that the .asc files you sent him validate successfully
>> against the binaries that he has.
>>
>> At this point, you (Jeromy) have the appropriate signatures for what Don
>> originally built, as well as the binaries, and can take it from there.
>>
>
> Thanks Martin, That doesn't take Don out of the loop so it won't
> alleviate the issue that he's been too busy to sign and distribute the
> binaries.
> If he's able to validate the .asc against the original binaries he's able
> to generate them. It's less effort and risk to wait until Don has time to
> complete the task.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/4/10, Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>:
> S2.1.1 isn't without bugs. I want it tagged and released (non GA) so more people can try it and so we can get some momentum again.
In fact I think that the "bug" is on the S1 side, I found the related issue:
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2864
The change introduces incompatibility between 1.3.5 and 1.3.6
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem
Posted by Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>.
S2.1.1 isn't without bugs. I want it tagged and released (non GA) so
more people can try it and so we can get some momentum again.
Al Sutton wrote:
> So would this mean that the S1 plugin for S2.1.1 wont work if the
> developer uses the S1.3.8 libraries instead of the S1.3.5 the plugin
> is being compiled with?
>
> If so I think we may have a show stopper because we're essentially
> stopping webapp developers using the latest S1 version with S2.1.1 :(.
>
> Al.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antonio Petrelli"
> <an...@gmail.com>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:53 AM
> Subject: Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem
>
>
>> 2008/4/10, Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>:
>>>
>>> D:\Struts2\Build\struts2\plugins\struts1\src\main\java\org\apache\struts2\s1\WrapperModuleConfig.java:[41,0]
>>>
>>> org.apache.struts2.s1.WrapperModuleConfig is not abstract and does not
>>> override abstract method findActionConfigId(java.lang.String) in
>>> org.apache.struts.config.ModuleConfig
>>
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, findActionConfigId has been introduced since S1.3.6
>> http://struts.apache.org/1.x/apidocs/org/apache/struts/config/ModuleConfig.html#findActionConfigId(java.lang.String)
>>
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
So would this mean that the S1 plugin for S2.1.1 wont work if the developer
uses the S1.3.8 libraries instead of the S1.3.5 the plugin is being compiled
with?
If so I think we may have a show stopper because we're essentially stopping
webapp developers using the latest S1 version with S2.1.1 :(.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Petrelli" <an...@gmail.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem
> 2008/4/10, Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>:
>>
>> D:\Struts2\Build\struts2\plugins\struts1\src\main\java\org\apache\struts2\s1\WrapperModuleConfig.java:[41,0]
>> org.apache.struts2.s1.WrapperModuleConfig is not abstract and does not
>> override abstract method findActionConfigId(java.lang.String) in
>> org.apache.struts.config.ModuleConfig
>
>
>
> AFAIK, findActionConfigId has been introduced since S1.3.6
> http://struts.apache.org/1.x/apidocs/org/apache/struts/config/ModuleConfig.html#findActionConfigId(java.lang.String)
>
> Antonio
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/4/10, Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>:
>
> D:\Struts2\Build\struts2\plugins\struts1\src\main\java\org\apache\struts2\s1\WrapperModuleConfig.java:[41,0]
> org.apache.struts2.s1.WrapperModuleConfig is not abstract and does not
> override abstract method findActionConfigId(java.lang.String) in
> org.apache.struts.config.ModuleConfig
AFAIK, findActionConfigId has been introduced since S1.3.6
http://struts.apache.org/1.x/apidocs/org/apache/struts/config/ModuleConfig.html#findActionConfigId(java.lang.String)
Antonio