You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> on 2005/11/22 03:18:27 UTC
[VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
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 this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
along with any appropriate comments.
Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
but on the release plan.
Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
Wednesday.
As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@apache.org>.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
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.
The one problem I see with this is that many people are not going to take
into consideration the release mechanism, they are simply going to see a
new version of Struts and jump on it. Especially as long as it has been
since the last version, I think people will be more inclined to do that.
Thinking more about the security issues, regardless of what severity you
ascribe to them, I think this potentially does a disservice to the user
community.
Joe makes a good point... I have no problem with a 1.3 release per se,
indeed I was pushing for it some weeks ago, but properly labeling it is
very important IMO. To me, a "beta" denotes a release that you believe is
ready for GA, and you just want to get feedback to confirm that. "alpha"
denotes that you believe there probably are problems yet to be resolved.
In that light, what Joe said makes sense, the vote should be for "alpha".
Does that make sense to anyone? The bottom line to me is there are some
outstanding issues yet to be resolved one way or another, and I would want
to be careful of giving people the wrong impression about the release, so
an alpha mark becomes more important with that in mind.
> Joe
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com * 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 something new."
> -- Robert Moog
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@apache.org>.
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 that are unheard of in a beta.
>
> We don't seem to have actually narrowed in on a process which lets us
> cut releases as frequently as we thought we would when we adopted the
> Apache numbering scheme, but by the ideal process, it's not a real big
> deal to put the tag on and push the thing out the door.
>
> 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.
>
> Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
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 upgrading to 1.3 and use
>> tried and tested code - without having to adopt the CoR
>> implementation.
>>
>> Since I have implemented the Cancellable behaviour in the 1.2.x
>> branch, then either it needs also applying to the 1.3 branch or that
>> change needs to be reversed.
>>
>> We probably should release a Struts 1.2.9 to fix this issue and the
>> "DOS attack" issue and I am willing to do that - probably have time in
>> a couple of weeks.
>
>+1 to Niall's comments, and therefore a non-binding -1 to tagging the
>repository... I don't see the point in even simply tagging if there are
>two outstanding security issues.
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 that are unheard of in a beta.
We don't seem to have actually narrowed in on a process which lets us
cut releases as frequently as we thought we would when we adopted the
Apache numbering scheme, but by the ideal process, it's not a real
big deal to put the tag on and push the thing out the door.
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.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com * 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 something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> 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 examples webapp - you can see it in action:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/struts/action/branches/STRUTS_1_2_BRANCH/web/examples/upload/
I've patched the 1.2.x branch for this bug, but held off fixing it in
1.3 at Ted's request.
Niall
>
> Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
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 - without having to adopt the CoR
> implementation.
>
> Since I have implemented the Cancellable behaviour in the 1.2.x
> branch, then either it needs also applying to the 1.3 branch or that
> change needs to be reversed.
>
> We probably should release a Struts 1.2.9 to fix this issue and the
> "DOS attack" issue and I am willing to do that - probably have time in
> a couple of weeks.
+1 to Niall's comments, and therefore a non-binding -1 to tagging the
repository... I don't see the point in even simply tagging if there are
two outstanding security issues.
By the way, I didn't catch the DOS hole... can someone point me at the
appropriate ticket?
> Niall
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
Laurie Harper wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
>> On 2/16/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> 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's a serious problem we know about that we didn't feel like
>>> taking the extra time to fix".
>>
>> All I'm saying is that I have no "extra" time. If someone else does,
>> then please step up and lend a hand.
>
> That's part of my reason for +1'ing a 1.3.0 release, even if it's never
> promoted (as a whole) from test release; Ted's put a ton of work into
> getting to this point. If a 1.3.0 release happens now, it'll presumably
> take less time and effort to incrementally address remaining issues and
> release updates of just the action sub-project, compared to postponing
> the 1.3.0 release and having to repeat much of the testing and prep work
> that's just been done.
Oops. Ted and others have put... Sorry, didn't mean to allocate the
blame^H^H^H^H^H^H credit to just Ted.
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> 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's a serious problem we know about that we didn't feel like
>> taking the extra time to fix".
>
> All I'm saying is that I have no "extra" time. If someone else does,
> then please step up and lend a hand.
That's part of my reason for +1'ing a 1.3.0 release, even if it's never
promoted (as a whole) from test release; Ted's put a ton of work into
getting to this point. If a 1.3.0 release happens now, it'll presumably
take less time and effort to incrementally address remaining issues and
release updates of just the action sub-project, compared to postponing
the 1.3.0 release and having to repeat much of the testing and prep work
that's just been done.
Just my 2 cents...
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> 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's a serious problem we know about that we didn't feel like
> taking the extra time to fix".
All I'm saying is that I have no "extra" time. If someone else does,
then please step up and lend a hand.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
[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) about CoR usage. The old link to CoR MailReader shows 14
month-old sources.
I presume that CoR is the major improvement in 1.3 and should be
presented/advertised/documented in a manner that a caveman can
understand.
Michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
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 many developers.
Hehe :) No, I'll stick with *almost* asking because I've been onboard
with 1.3 for a long time, even though I'm not currently using it, the
benefits of a CoR-based design is completely obvious IMO (enough so that
I've done two projects now that used CoR without actually using 1.3). I
wouldn't ask *now* if releasing it makes sense :) Almost...
> I know that I'm not about to back off to
> 1.2.8 on my current project, since I'm getting a lot out of 1.3, but I'm
> also sufficiently invested in that that I'm not about to switch horses and
> move to WebWork instead. Now, I could be alone, but I strongly suspect I'm
> not. ;-)
I doubt your alone either... likewise with me, I'm on 1.2.6 at the moment,
and it completely suits my needs for the time being, so I'm not in any
rush to upgrade to anything either (I probably could if I wanted, but I'd
have some fighting to do, given the corporate environment I work in).
I'm thinking more of progress... if everyone agrees WW is the future (and
that *seems* to be the general concensus), 1.3 becomes less important
IMO... those that want to use it anyway are probably already doing so, but
I also know tons of people wait for a GA release, or *have* to wait for a
GA release, and if 1.3 isn't going to make that milestone for some time,
or arguably ever, and if the WW merger happens before 1.3.x goes GA, then
what was the point to putting effort them all along instead of directly
into the WW merger?
Oops... I didn't ask that... I *almost* asked that ;) LOL
OTOH, I would feel bad for Ted, Wendy and others who have put in good work
on 1.3 lately, so if for that reason alone the release should happen. The
reward for the effort is the release itself, and I appreciate that. Eh,
I've taken this whole thing OT, sorry about that... you all realize by now
I never say with less than 1,000 words something that only need 10 to
begin with :)
> --
> Martin Cooper
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 2/16/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> 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, too.
>
> I don't disagree, but isn't it true that 1.3 won't make anything obsolete,
> the WW merger will? I mean, one could almost at this point ask what's the
> point of putting 1.3 out at all, given that the WW merger is the future of
> Struts, right?
You'll note that I put "obsolete" in quotes. What I mean is that I see no
reason that anyone would want to start a new project using 1.1 when we have
1.2 GA releases. Similarly, once 1.3 goes GA, it doesn't make much sense to
start a new project with 1.2. Beyond that, it's a matter of how many
versions we want to (and have the energy to) support.
The WW merger won't make anything obsolete by itself. It will provide a new
choice for people to use on their projects, and we hope to encourage them to
migrate to the new Struts 2. Yes, this will eventually make the Struts 1
line obsolete in a more real sense, but the Struts 1 line is not going to go
away for a very long time.
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 many developers. I know that I'm not about to back off to
1.2.8 on my current project, since I'm getting a lot out of 1.3, but I'm
also sufficiently invested in that that I'm not about to switch horses and
move to WebWork instead. Now, I could be alone, but I strongly suspect I'm
not. ;-)
--
Martin Cooper
> --
> > Martin Cooper
>
> Frank
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
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 obsolete,
the WW merger will? I mean, one could almost at this point ask what's the
point of putting 1.3 out at all, given that the WW merger is the future of
Struts, right?
> --
> Martin Cooper
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 (and I don't
> agree it is), then we should also patch and re-release Struts 1.1,
> which many more people are using. The behavior has existed from day
> one; it's not specific to 1.2. Or, if we are saying that 1.2 makes 1.1
> obsolete, then perhaps we should focus on stablizing Struts 1.3 so as
> to make 1.2 obsolete too.
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's a serious problem we know about that we didn't feel like
taking the extra time to fix".
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.
--
Martin Cooper
As to any other changes, if Wendy doesn't mind, and someone wants to
> make those and also help finish up on the 1.3.0 release, I'm not going
> to argue. But, I would have to remove my name as release co-manager,
> since I just don't have any more time to spend on 1.3.0 right now. If
> someone else can do it, that would be great, it's just that I can't.
>
> 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 important thing, I think, is to get past the point having to
> release everything all at once. Then we can address any other issues
> in an agile, release-often, way. Otherwise, it will always be
> something, and a week will turn into a month, which turns into another
> quarter.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 - without having to adopt the CoR
> > implementation.
> >
> > Since I have implemented the Cancellable behaviour in the 1.2.x
> > branch, then either it needs also applying to the 1.3 branch or that
> > change needs to be reversed.
> >
> > We probably should release a Struts 1.2.9 to fix this issue and the
> > "DOS attack" issue and I am willing to do that - probably have time in
> > a couple of weeks.
> >
> > > If this change prompts anyone to change their vote, please chime-in
> > > now. 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. A quality vote would follow once the test
> > > builds are posted.
> >
> > I realize the plan vote and quality vote are separte issues, but IMO
> > the DOS attack bug is v.serious - you can stop a whole web app from
> > working using it - and I don't understand why were not fixing it in
> > 1.3.0. IMO 1.3.0 is never going to be more than a beta with this "DOS
> > attack" bug - or with the original request processor "cancellable"
> > security hole. Both are really bad.
> >
> > Niall
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
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 important thing, I think, is to get past the point having to
> release everything all at once. Then we can address any other issues
> in an agile, release-often, way. Otherwise, it will always be
> something, and a week will turn into a month, which turns into another
> quarter.
+1 to this action plan. I'm in the camp of considering the two security
bugs a requirement for a GA level release, but getting the 'seven
dwarfs' out the door would at least clear some room in the workshop ;-)
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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, we've never had a new minor version make GA on the first
> release. The 1.2 series came close, we made GA in three tries. The 1.1
> series took three betas and a release candidate. I don't expect that
> 1.3 would be much different.
Same even on 1.0 ... it took two point releases to get it right.
-Ted.
Craig
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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, we've never had a new minor version make GA on the first
release. The 1.2 series came close, we made GA in three tries. The 1.1
series took three betas and a release candidate. I don't expect that
1.3 would be much different.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 to do :)
I think it can be done just like 'current' -- a single directory with
svn:externals. It's a matter of grabbing the "right" set of
already-existing tags. However, I was just thinking out loud that it
might be useful, and haven't had time to experiment with it.
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> 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 to mean that "Struts Action Framework" would also
refer to EL, Extras, Tiles, Taglib, Flow, and Scripting.
> * Struts Action Library - A numbered collection of ]versioned subprojects
I think the library should be the set of the "best available" Struts
subproject JARs that are know to work with the "best available" Struts
Action 1 JAR, and other related dependencies.
> * Struts Classic - In the trash can. We don't use this term, ever again.
I think the "Classic" term is a useful shorthand for the original
seven dwarfs. I agree that there probably won't be a reason to tag and
build all seven together again under a single plan, as we did today.
So I doubt there won't be a need for another "Classic" release plan.
Each subproject (Action, EL, Extras, Taglib, Tiles) should now have
it's own release plan, as we did with Scripting.
> Right. But we still need a way to grab all of the sources that match that
> library.
Hmmm, I just don't see that as a regular need for that myself. A
Release Manager wouldn't need to touch the sources, only test the
JARs. In the event that someone does need to do that, I agree that
there should be a cannonical place to put the tag, so that it doesn't
need to be done twice. But I don't see why we would need to grab all
the sources in the normal course. Each subproject is a separate
release and should be treated as such. If it turns out that we do need
to do such a thing, then we can start doing it. But I'm not going to
spend any time doing it until there a demonstrated need.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> 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.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action/tags/STRUTS_ACTION_LIBRARY_1_3_00
It turns out that we have eight dwarfs. :) The 'build' directory has
to be treated like another sub-project in order to keep the tags
straight with svn:externals. Otherwise, if you check out one of these
tags a year from now, you'll get the HEAD revision of 'build' with it.
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> 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 Classic 1.3.0 is a "bootstrap" initiative to extract seven
> new Struts subprojects from Struts 1.2.8.
>
> * Each subproject will be available as an independant distribution
>
> * The set of JARs created or used by all seven subprojects will be
> available in one convenient ZIP archive.
>
> * When a subproject has a new GA release, the library distribution
> would be updated, and the version counter incremented.
Right. That references "Struts Classic" and "the library distribution". But
it doesn't indicate whether those are the same thing or not, and certainly
doesn't answer my questions. It was in response to seeing "Classic" still in
the wiki page that I initially brought this up as a reply to the wiki change
message.
So here are the terms I believe we should be using:
* Struts Action Framework - The framework in general, including all relevant
subprojects
* Struts Action Library - A numbered collection of versioned subprojects
* Struts Classic - In the trash can. We don't use this term, ever again.
> IMO, such a tag is going to be the only reliable way to connect the
> version
> > number to its precise content.
>
> Per the release plan, the Library is not going to be "versioned". The
> releases underlying the JARs already have releases. We decided to give
> it a counter instead.
That's fine. A tag doesn't have to relate to a version, it's just a tag. But
tell me how you're going to check out the source that corresponds to Struts
Action Library 1.3.1_04 without dredging through that bundle of jars and
doing individual checkouts of all of the separate subprojects.
The Library is *not* a a release. It's a set of compatible
> dependencies. Many people don't need or want the full distribution.
> All they want is the JARs, and so that's what the Library provides:
> Just the JARs. It's really no different than the Library distribution
> that we provide with 1.2 and prior.
Right. 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.
--
Martin Cooper
If someone wants to setup such a tag, feel free. I don't see that it
> would have any practical value.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> 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 Classic 1.3.0 is a "bootstrap" initiative to extract seven
new Struts subprojects from Struts 1.2.8.
* Each subproject will be available as an independant distribution
* The set of JARs created or used by all seven subprojects will be
available in one convenient ZIP archive.
* When a subproject has a new GA release, the library distribution
would be updated, and the version counter incremented.
> IMO, such a tag is going to be the only reliable way to connect the version
> number to its precise content.
Per the release plan, the Library is not going to be "versioned". The
releases underlying the JARs already have releases. We decided to give
it a counter instead.
The Library is *not* a a release. It's a set of compatible
dependencies. Many people don't need or want the full distribution.
All they want is the JARs, and so that's what the Library provides:
Just the JARs. It's really no different than the Library distribution
that we provide with 1.2 and prior.
If someone wants to setup such a tag, feel free. I don't see that it
would have any practical value.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/06, Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net> 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 letting Maven pull the release jars for the other
> > sub-projects gets you there anyway IMHO.
>
> The Action Library is not a release per se. It's a collection of JARs:
> Commons JARs, Struts JARs, and whatever other dependant JARs we can
> redistribute.
>
> The idea is that Taglibs releases a new 1.3.1 JAR that we have already
> tested to work with (say) Struts Action 1.3.4. We vote the Taglibs
> 1.3.1 JAR GA, and decide to update the Struts Action Library by
> replacing the Taglib 1.3.0 JAR with the Taglib 1.3.1 JAR.
>
> 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 to do :)
>
> Of course, if that sounds like fun to someone else, hey, go for it.
> But to me, it sounds like too much work for too little utility. It's a
> tag for the sake of having a tag.
Without this tag, can one reliably rebuild a particular "edition" of the
Struts Action Library from source? If not, then it would seem to be pretty
important, unless we didn't call the library itself a release, but made up
some other sort of term like "distribution."
-Ted.
Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/06, Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net> 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 letting Maven pull the release jars for the other
> > sub-projects gets you there anyway IMHO.
>
> The Action Library is not a release per se. It's a collection of JARs:
> Commons JARs, Struts JARs, and whatever other dependant JARs we can
> redistribute.
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. I still believe we
decided to not use the Struts Classic name, so I'm hoping we're down to just
the other two.
The idea is that Taglibs releases a new 1.3.1 JAR that we have already
> tested to work with (say) Struts Action 1.3.4. We vote the Taglibs
> 1.3.1 JAR GA, and decide to update the Struts Action Library by
> replacing the Taglib 1.3.0 JAR with the Taglib 1.3.1 JAR.
>
> 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 to do :)
You don't have to have *anything* checked out to create a tag or branch in
SVN. That so many things can be done without anything on your local disk is
one of my favourite things about SVN.
IMO, such a tag is going to be the only reliable way to connect the version
number to its precise content.
--
Martin Cooper
Of course, if that sounds like fun to someone else, hey, go for it.
> But to me, it sounds like too much work for too little utility. It's a
> tag for the sake of having a tag.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net> 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 letting Maven pull the release jars for the other
> sub-projects gets you there anyway IMHO.
The Action Library is not a release per se. It's a collection of JARs:
Commons JARs, Struts JARs, and whatever other dependant JARs we can
redistribute.
The idea is that Taglibs releases a new 1.3.1 JAR that we have already
tested to work with (say) Struts Action 1.3.4. We vote the Taglibs
1.3.1 JAR GA, and decide to update the Struts Action Library by
replacing the Taglib 1.3.0 JAR with the Taglib 1.3.1 JAR.
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 to do :)
Of course, if that sounds like fun to someone else, hey, go for it.
But to me, it sounds like too much work for too little utility. It's a
tag for the sake of having a tag.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
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-projects gets you there anyway IMHO.
L.
Ted Husted wrote:
> 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 of Struts GA
> releases that are dependant on Action and work with a given Action GA.
> (So, technically, right now, that's a null set, since we have no GA
> releases, but we should at least prime the pump. )
>
> In the future, if we wanted to a tag for that set, we might have to
> use a "working copy" tag, since it probably would not be a tag against
> the HEAD, but against some GA tag for each of the different
> subprojects. It would be a mix of revisions.
>
> * http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04s06.html#svn-ch-4-sect-6.2
>
> Though, the Action Library release manager would not need to obtain
> the set of source file as a matter of course. No more than we need to
> obtain the source for a Commons JAR. The release manager for an Action
> Library would only need to test the JARs already decreed GA, the same
> as we do for Commons JARs.
>
> My question would be whether we are going to expect an Action Library
> release manager to go through the work of making a complex tag?
>
> If someone wants to check-out the Struts source for each of the JARs
> and create the tag, that's great, and it would be a good idea to have
> a cannonical place to put such a tag. But being a release manager is
> hard enough without making work. If someone needs the set, the set is
> obtainable. If we need it, then we can create it when we need it, and
> save it somewhere so someone doesn't need to create it again. But
> creating it up front seems like busy-work.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/17/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> 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)
>> ACTION-LIB_1.3_00, so you can grab all the "right" versions of the
>> sub-projects that go with a particular library distribution. These
>> are the ones we've tested to make sure they work together. I'm just
>> not sure where to put it. What about in struts/action/tags or just
>> struts/tags ? Current doesn't seem like the right place, no one would
>> go looking in "current" for an old release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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 of Struts GA
releases that are dependant on Action and work with a given Action GA.
(So, technically, right now, that's a null set, since we have no GA
releases, but we should at least prime the pump. )
In the future, if we wanted to a tag for that set, we might have to
use a "working copy" tag, since it probably would not be a tag against
the HEAD, but against some GA tag for each of the different
subprojects. It would be a mix of revisions.
* http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04s06.html#svn-ch-4-sect-6.2
Though, the Action Library release manager would not need to obtain
the set of source file as a matter of course. No more than we need to
obtain the source for a Commons JAR. The release manager for an Action
Library would only need to test the JARs already decreed GA, the same
as we do for Commons JARs.
My question would be whether we are going to expect an Action Library
release manager to go through the work of making a complex tag?
If someone wants to check-out the Struts source for each of the JARs
and create the tag, that's great, and it would be a good idea to have
a cannonical place to put such a tag. But being a release manager is
hard enough without making work. If someone needs the set, the set is
obtainable. If we need it, then we can create it when we need it, and
save it somewhere so someone doesn't need to create it again. But
creating it up front seems like busy-work.
-Ted.
On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/17/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> 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)
> ACTION-LIB_1.3_00, so you can grab all the "right" versions of the
> sub-projects that go with a particular library distribution. These
> are the ones we've tested to make sure they work together. I'm just
> not sure where to put it. What about in struts/action/tags or just
> struts/tags ? Current doesn't seem like the right place, no one would
> go looking in "current" for an old release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> 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)
ACTION-LIB_1.3_00, so you can grab all the "right" versions of the
sub-projects that go with a particular library distribution. These
are the ones we've tested to make sure they work together. I'm just
not sure where to put it. What about in struts/action/tags or just
struts/tags ? Current doesn't seem like the right place, no one would
go looking in "current" for an old release.
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
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 <te...@gmail.com> 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 uploaded.
>
> Thanks, Ted!
>
> We need one more tag: STRUTS-BUILD_1.3.0, from r378515 for
> consistency. I can do it tonight unless someone beats me to it. Then
> the svn:externals on the tags need to be modified to point to the
> tagged build directory.
>
> I learned this from Sean during the MyFaces reorg. It makes sense
> that the externals definitions get copied to the tag, they're just
> properties on a directory. The problem is that all of those externals
> still point at the build/trunk directory, so you don't get the right
> contents if you check out a tag.
>
> There's more to this that I haven't thought through completely--
> 'build' almost has to be treated like another sub-project and
> "released" when there are changes.
>
> --
> Wendy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 uploaded.
Thanks, Ted!
We need one more tag: STRUTS-BUILD_1.3.0, from r378515 for
consistency. I can do it tonight unless someone beats me to it. Then
the svn:externals on the tags need to be modified to point to the
tagged build directory.
I learned this from Sean during the MyFaces reorg. It makes sense
that the externals definitions get copied to the tag, they're just
properties on a directory. The problem is that all of those externals
still point at the build/trunk directory, so you don't get the right
contents if you check out a tag.
There's more to this that I haven't thought through completely--
'build' almost has to be treated like another sub-project and
"released" when there are changes.
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 point, the seven Classic subproject
builds are tagged, rolled, and uploaded.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> 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 first thing in the morning then.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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).
>
> Good point and probably all the more reason for carrying on with
> things as they stand.
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. :)
As soon as that happens and the version numbers are flipped to
1.3.1-SNAPSHOT, then the patches for the remaining issues can go in,
and struts-action 1.3.1 can follow quickly.
If Ted doesn't have time now, and no one else steps up to do it... my
calendar says it will be no earlier than the 25th. And in that case,
we might as well let Niall go ahead with the fix, (for
RequestProcessor?) which I suspect he already has ready to go in, or
close to it.
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 (and I don't
> agree it is), then we should also patch and re-release Struts 1.1,
> which many more people are using. The behavior has existed from day
> one; it's not specific to 1.2. Or, if we are saying that 1.2 makes 1.1
> obsolete, then perhaps we should focus on stablizing Struts 1.3 so as
> to make 1.2 obsolete too.
Yes we should patch and release 1.1 as well, but I don't have any
interest in working on 1.1.
> As to any other changes, if Wendy doesn't mind, and someone wants to
> make those and also help finish up on the 1.3.0 release, I'm not going
> to argue. But, I would have to remove my name as release co-manager,
> since I just don't have any more time to spend on 1.3.0 right now. If
> someone else can do it, that would be great, it's just that I can't.
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.
> 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).
Good point and probably all the more reason for carrying on with
things as they stand.
Niall
> The important thing, I think, is to get past the point having to
> release everything all at once. Then we can address any other issues
> in an agile, release-often, way. Otherwise, it will always be
> something, and a week will turn into a month, which turns into another
> quarter.
>
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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-release Struts 1.1,
which many more people are using. The behavior has existed from day
one; it's not specific to 1.2. Or, if we are saying that 1.2 makes 1.1
obsolete, then perhaps we should focus on stablizing Struts 1.3 so as
to make 1.2 obsolete too.
As to any other changes, if Wendy doesn't mind, and someone wants to
make those and also help finish up on the 1.3.0 release, I'm not going
to argue. But, I would have to remove my name as release co-manager,
since I just don't have any more time to spend on 1.3.0 right now. If
someone else can do it, that would be great, it's just that I can't.
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 important thing, I think, is to get past the point having to
release everything all at once. Then we can address any other issues
in an agile, release-often, way. Otherwise, it will always be
something, and a week will turn into a month, which turns into another
quarter.
-Ted.
On 2/16/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 - without having to adopt the CoR
> implementation.
>
> Since I have implemented the Cancellable behaviour in the 1.2.x
> branch, then either it needs also applying to the 1.3 branch or that
> change needs to be reversed.
>
> We probably should release a Struts 1.2.9 to fix this issue and the
> "DOS attack" issue and I am willing to do that - probably have time in
> a couple of weeks.
>
> > If this change prompts anyone to change their vote, please chime-in
> > now. 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. A quality vote would follow once the test
> > builds are posted.
>
> I realize the plan vote and quality vote are separte issues, but IMO
> the DOS attack bug is v.serious - you can stop a whole web app from
> working using it - and I don't understand why were not fixing it in
> 1.3.0. IMO 1.3.0 is never going to be more than a beta with this "DOS
> attack" bug - or with the original request processor "cancellable"
> security hole. Both are really bad.
>
> Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/16/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 to this feature, or
> any other new feature, we'd have to maintain the code in two places.
> As long as the behavior gracefully degrades, it seems reasonable to me
> to add new features to the new RequestProcessor and leaving the legacy
> RP alone (unless the 1.2.x branch is also going to be released - but
> no one has volunteered to do that). If people want access to features
> new to 1.3, they can use the new RP. If the new CRP passes muster and
> remains the default for 1.3.1, we should move the legacy RP to
> "extras" and deprecate it.
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 - without having to adopt the CoR
implementation.
Since I have implemented the Cancellable behaviour in the 1.2.x
branch, then either it needs also applying to the 1.3 branch or that
change needs to be reversed.
We probably should release a Struts 1.2.9 to fix this issue and the
"DOS attack" issue and I am willing to do that - probably have time in
a couple of weeks.
> If this change prompts anyone to change their vote, please chime-in
> now. 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. A quality vote would follow once the test
> builds are posted.
I realize the plan vote and quality vote are separte issues, but IMO
the DOS attack bug is v.serious - you can stop a whole web app from
working using it - and I don't understand why were not fixing it in
1.3.0. IMO 1.3.0 is never going to be more than a beta with this "DOS
attack" bug - or with the original request processor "cancellable"
security hole. Both are really bad.
Niall
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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 maintain the code in two places.
As long as the behavior gracefully degrades, it seems reasonable to me
to add new features to the new RequestProcessor and leaving the legacy
RP alone (unless the 1.2.x branch is also going to be released - but
no one has volunteered to do that). If people want access to features
new to 1.3, they can use the new RP. If the new CRP passes muster and
remains the default for 1.3.1, we should move the legacy RP to
"extras" and deprecate it.
If this change prompts anyone to change their vote, please chime-in
now. 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. A quality vote would follow once the test
builds are posted.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com> 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 does provide a solution and then it can be replaced with a broader solution.
It is just a patch - the long term solution to this specific bug is to
remove the getter method from ActionForm.
> That of course assumes a broader solution :-)
>
> I really do want to investigate allowing the form to dictate which properties are valid/invalid for population by the RP. Does anyone want to investigate this with me? I still find a blacklist or whitelist map to be the way to go. I am sensitive to what properties people can populate in my form with a good guess; and you'd be surprised what can be inferred from a logical group of property names.
This is a different issue from this bug and I don't' think I agree
that its even a problem. If you expose something in your ActionForm
that you don't want populated then that is where the problem lies and
you need to get them out of the ActionForm.
Niall
> Paul
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Brings words and photos together (easily) with
> PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/14/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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 I'll leave it :-(
Niall
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com>.
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 a broader solution.
That of course assumes a broader solution :-)
I really do want to investigate allowing the form to dictate which properties are valid/invalid for population by the RP. Does anyone want to investigate this with me? I still find a blacklist or whitelist map to be the way to go. I am sensitive to what properties people can populate in my form with a good guess; and you'd be surprised what can be inferred from a logical group of property names.
Paul
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/14/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 November)., and we should be able to roll
> each of the seven subprojects.
I'd like to fix "DOS attack, application hack" by patching
RequestUtils to ignore any parameter starting with
"multipartRequestHandler.".
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
I don't understand your comment about there being no agreement and
moving it to 1.3.1 - no one seemed to object to this proposal. I think
Paul just wanted a more complete solution in general. Its not elegant
but it plugs the gap and I think this is the main bug left thats going
to screw up 1.3.0's quality vote.
If no one shouts in the next hour, I'm going to fix this.
Niall
> Hopefully, I can make some time in the evenings to finish this up,
> but we're starting a new phase at work tomorrow, and I don't know how
> much time I'll have.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com> 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 the Map interface is using the Java 5 templates:
> http://struts.apache.org/struts-action/apidocs/org/apache/struts/chain/contexts/ActionContext.html
Thanks for pointing this out. While the compiler is configured to
target 1.4 regardless of what JDK is used to build, we're missing the
'maven.javadoc.source' property to do the same thing for the javadoc
tool.
I'll add it to project.properties and re-publish the site.
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/build/trunk/project.properties
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com>.
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 Map interface is using the Java 5 templates: http://struts.apache.org/struts-action/apidocs/org/apache/struts/chain/contexts/ActionContext.html
Second, please do some further thinking about the name ActionContext. I just got my WebWork book and am reading it, and I have some preliminary ideas how we can wrap the 1.x branch to use POJO Action classes that do not require an interface or subclass. But this would of course require the ActionContext to be passed in so all the necessary input and output data can be used.
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 understand this. But WebWork has an ActionContext class too and I think it would be very smart of us to rename the current ActionContext class to something like InternalActionContext so we do not use up this name. For once we release in 1.3, the name is pretty much stuck.
I recommend we reserve "ActionContext" for the future, to contain the context we would actually want to expose to a future Action implementation.
Paul
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
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 the
> Plan.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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 subprojects.
Hopefully, I can make some time in the evenings to finish this up,
but we're starting a new phase at work tomorrow, and I don't know how
much time I'll have.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
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
Joe@Germuska.com * 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 something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Don Brown <do...@gmail.com>.
+1 Lets just get something out the door already :)
Don
On 11/21/05, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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-core, and the other are
> minor changes to the documentation.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
>
> At this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
> parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
> indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
> along with any appropriate comments.
>
> Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
> but on the release plan.
>
> Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
> on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
> Wednesday.
>
> As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
> infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 be a 1.3.0 release for each of the seven dwarfs, and a
> "Library" ZIP file with just the JARS utilized by all seven. (Except
> the Servlet and JSTL JARs, unless we can redistribute these too.)
What about the tld and dtd files? Looks like those were in the 1.2.8
library distribution, though struts-el was not. We should probably
include validator-rules.xml as well, even though it is also packaged
in one of the jars.
> Again, this is not a vote on the quality of the release, only whether
> to tag the trunk with the marker STRUTS_1_3_0.
+1
And no objections to the two patches, in whichever order it makes
sense to apply them.
--
Wendy Smoak
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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 "Validation always skipped
with Globals.CANCEL_KEY".
It looks like the changes would overlap, and since you've already done
the work, it would be better to commit that first.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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 "Validation always skipped
> > with Globals.CANCEL_KEY".
>
> OK as I said I don't have a patch for this - currently needs a change
> to RequestProcessor - if I put in my "multipart command" changes, they
> include preventing this - without those changes then the fix to
> RequestProcessor does the job.
>
> > It looks like the changes would overlap, and since you've already done
> > the work, it would be better to commit that first.
>
> I've just had a quick look - I can't see any overlap - if your
> adopting Pauls patch for Struts 1.2 to the Commands then your going to
> be changing AbstractValidateActionForm, which I have no changes for.
>
> Niall
>
> > -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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.
I don't have a patch for #38534 - my proposed changes for #38613
includes fixing #38534. Did you mean commit #38613?
Niall
> If we can get a majority vote on the plan by Monday, I have time
> available to tag and roll the release.
>
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 2/11/06, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> 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.
If we can get a majority vote on the plan by Monday, I have time
available to tag and roll the release.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 - which doesn't match
up with the bug list on the release plan:
http://tinyurl.com/bp8bw
I'm going to try and do a quick review of the bugs not on the release plan.
Niall
> 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
> "Library" ZIP file with just the JARS utilized by all seven. (Except
> the Servlet and JSTL JARs, unless we can redistribute these too.)
>
> Again, this is not a vote on the quality of the release, only whether
> to tag the trunk with the marker STRUTS_1_3_0.
>
> -Ted.
>
>
> On 11/21/05, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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-core, and the other are
> > minor changes to the documentation.
> >
> > * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
> >
> > At this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
> > parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
> > indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
> > along with any appropriate comments.
> >
> > Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
> > but on the release plan.
> >
> > Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
> > on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
> > Wednesday.
> >
> > As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
> > infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
> >
> > -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 be a 1.3.0 release for each of the seven dwarfs, and a
> "Library" ZIP file with just the JARS utilized by all seven. (Except
> the Servlet and JSTL JARs, unless we can redistribute these too.)
>
> Again, this is not a vote on the quality of the release, only whether
> to tag the trunk with the marker STRUTS_1_3_0.
My vote is +1 for the plan.
However with the code as it stands at the moment (re Bug #38534 and
Bug #38374) I will be voting "beta" for the quality.
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 2/11/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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 be a 1.3.0 release for each of the seven dwarfs, and a
> "Library" ZIP file with just the JARS utilized by all seven. (Except
> the Servlet and JSTL JARs, unless we can redistribute these too.)
>
> Again, this is not a vote on the quality of the release, only whether
> to tag the trunk with the marker STRUTS_1_3_0.
And produce and announce a 1.3.0 Test Build, I assume? +1 on that.
You could wait until Tuesday and claim it's a Valentine's Day gift. ;-)
--
Martin Cooper
-Ted.
>
>
> On 11/21/05, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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-core, and the other are
> > minor changes to the documentation.
> >
> > * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
> >
> > At this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
> > parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
> > indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
> > along with any appropriate comments.
> >
> > Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
> > but on the release plan.
> >
> > Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
> > on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
> > Wednesday.
> >
> > As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
> > infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
> >
> > -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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 <pa...@yahoo.com> 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 already in the middle. I can help
> out with other things if you need them. -- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by James Holmes <ja...@jamesholmes.com>.
+1
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Husted [mailto:ted.husted@gmail.com]
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.
* 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
"Library" ZIP file with just the JARS utilized by all seven. (Except
the Servlet and JSTL JARs, unless we can redistribute these too.)
Again, this is not a vote on the quality of the release, only whether
to tag the trunk with the marker STRUTS_1_3_0.
-Ted.
On 11/21/05, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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-core, and the other are
> minor changes to the documentation.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
>
> At this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
> parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
> indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
> along with any appropriate comments.
>
> Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
> but on the release plan.
>
> Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
> on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
> Wednesday.
>
> As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
> infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
>
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com>.
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) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
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
"Library" ZIP file with just the JARS utilized by all seven. (Except
the Servlet and JSTL JARs, unless we can redistribute these too.)
Again, this is not a vote on the quality of the release, only whether
to tag the trunk with the marker STRUTS_1_3_0.
-Ted.
On 11/21/05, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> 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-core, and the other are
> minor changes to the documentation.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsClassicRelease130
>
> At this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
> parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
> indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
> along with any appropriate comments.
>
> Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
> but on the release plan.
>
> Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
> on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
> Wednesday.
>
> As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
> infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
>
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net> 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 working. You can deploy the exercises app with
>>> the addition I just committed and see for yourself:
>>> http://localhost:8080/struts-examples/exercise/enhanced-dynabean.do
>>>
>>> I've rolled back your change and everything works fine again, including
>>> indexed property access for arrays and lists. The unit test you added
>>> passes either way.
>> I just refreshed and the JUnit test I wrote is now failing for me.
>
> Its failing in gump as well
> http://vmgump.apache.org/gump/public/struts/struts-action/gump_work/build_struts_struts-action.html
>
> I've had problems with the maven build - when I've used build-all if a
> sub-project test fails maven just carries on ignoring it and it
> appears you get a successful build. Now I do the sub-projects
> separately.
>
> I'm wondering if thats what you used?
I was using 'maven test' without problem. It seems my checkout was
warped, though, because even though svn was telling me it was
up-to-date, after an 'svn update' I'm now seeing the failure.
I'll look at it tomorrow and figure out what's wrong.
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net> 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 working. You can deploy the exercises app with
> > the addition I just committed and see for yourself:
> > http://localhost:8080/struts-examples/exercise/enhanced-dynabean.do
> >
> > I've rolled back your change and everything works fine again, including
> > indexed property access for arrays and lists. The unit test you added
> > passes either way.
>
> I just refreshed and the JUnit test I wrote is now failing for me.
Its failing in gump as well
http://vmgump.apache.org/gump/public/struts/struts-action/gump_work/build_struts_struts-action.html
I've had problems with the maven build - when I've used build-all if a
sub-project test fails maven just carries on ignoring it and it
appears you get a successful build. Now I do the sub-projects
separately.
I'm wondering if thats what you used?
Niall
> Niall
>
> > If you think there's a scenario not covered by the exercises page that
> > would be broken with the original code let me know and I'll look into it
> > further.
> >
> > L.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 11/29/05, Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net> 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 working. You can deploy the exercises app with
> the addition I just committed and see for yourself:
> http://localhost:8080/struts-examples/exercise/enhanced-dynabean.do
>
> I've rolled back your change and everything works fine again, including
> indexed property access for arrays and lists. The unit test you added
> passes either way.
I just refreshed and the JUnit test I wrote is now failing for me.
Niall
> If you think there's a scenario not covered by the exercises page that
> would be broken with the original code let me know and I'll look into it
> further.
>
> L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
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 committed and see for yourself:
http://localhost:8080/struts-examples/exercise/enhanced-dynabean.do
I've rolled back your change and everything works fine again, including
indexed property access for arrays and lists. The unit test you added
passes either way.
If you think there's a scenario not covered by the exercises page that
would be broken with the original code let me know and I'll look into it
further.
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 11/27/05, Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net> 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 exercises app? I
> have that almost ready to commit; I just have to figure out what I have
> to do to have JSTL expressions evaluated correctly in all supported
> levels of JSP release.
>
> I'll be happy to add JUnit tests as well if you (or anyone) really wants
> them ;-) but it might take a little longer to get to.
I've added a simple JUnit test for the CGLib enhanced DynaActionForm.
Also looked like the property types were the wrong way round for
indexed methods, so I also switched them.
Niall
> L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
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 figure out what I have
to do to have JSTL expressions evaluated correctly in all supported
levels of JSP release.
I'll be happy to add JUnit tests as well if you (or anyone) really wants
them ;-) but it might take a little longer to get to.
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
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" <ra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:50 PM
On 11/22/05, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> 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
> (documentation), and the third looks like a user support issue.
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/7hhuu
>
> None of these should block a release.
>
> As a member of the Jakarta PMC, can I just call for a vote, or do I
> still need to be on Commons Resources list? (Or does anyone else want
> to volunteer to wrap this up?)
AFAICT, you're on "the list" [1]. So unless I'm mistaken about that,
you should be able to just roll an RC, if there are no pending issues.
Actually, this looks like something I could use elsewhere too,
especially the database and XML related resources so I'd like to help
-- but I neither have karma nor a binding vote, so I'll keep the noise
to a minimum ;-)
-Rahul
[1]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/resources/trunk/STATUS.html
>
> -Ted.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 11/22/05, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> 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
> (documentation), and the third looks like a user support issue.
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/7hhuu
>
> None of these should block a release.
>
> As a member of the Jakarta PMC, can I just call for a vote, or do I
> still need to be on Commons Resources list? (Or does anyone else want
> to volunteer to wrap this up?)
AFAICT, you're on "the list" [1]. So unless I'm mistaken about that,
you should be able to just roll an RC, if there are no pending issues.
Actually, this looks like something I could use elsewhere too,
especially the database and XML related resources so I'd like to help
-- but I neither have karma nor a binding vote, so I'll keep the noise
to a minimum ;-)
-Rahul
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/resources/trunk/STATUS.html
>
> -Ted.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
I agree, and I wish I had the time to do this, however, I'm currently
scrambling to replace my primary income. I have a side project, but my main
gig ended last Friday.
If things turn around soon, I'll jump on it.
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://www.edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
Skype: jmitchtx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Husted" <te...@gmail.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
On 11/22/05, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> 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
(documentation), and the third looks like a user support issue.
* http://tinyurl.com/7hhuu
None of these should block a release.
As a member of the Jakarta PMC, can I just call for a vote, or do I
still need to be on Commons Resources list? (Or does anyone else want
to volunteer to wrap this up?)
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 11/22/05, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> 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
(documentation), and the third looks like a user support issue.
* http://tinyurl.com/7hhuu
None of these should block a release.
As a member of the Jakarta PMC, can I just call for a vote, or do I
still need to be on Commons Resources list? (Or does anyone else want
to volunteer to wrap this up?)
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
> Can we not remove these for now and bring them back in if/when Commons
> Resource gets released?
I agree that we should not be releasing the resources piece of Extras at
this point.
We simply need to exclude it as part of the build. However, I am -1 for
actually doing anything to those files in svn.
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://www.edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
Skype: jmitchtx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Niall Pemberton" <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
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 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
> Resource gets released?
>
> Also the CGLib dependency is missing from the plan. From memory Hubert has
> outstanding objections to the DynaActionForm enhancement using CGLib -
> doesn't that need resolving first? Personally I don't have any interest in
> the CGLib enhancement although I would have preferred it in the extras
> 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
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Husted" <te...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:18 AM
>
>
> 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 this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
> parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
> indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
> along with any appropriate comments.
>
> Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
> but on the release plan.
>
> Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
> on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
> Wednesday.
>
> As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
> infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
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
Resource gets released?
Also the CGLib dependency is missing from the plan. From memory Hubert has
outstanding objections to the DynaActionForm enhancement using CGLib -
doesn't that need resolving first? Personally I don't have any interest in
the CGLib enhancement although I would have preferred it in the extras
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Husted" <te...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:18 AM
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 this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested
parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please
indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1,
along with any appropriate comments.
Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release,
but on the release plan.
Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release
on Thursday or Friday, assuming we rename the struts-core folder on
Wednesday.
As stated in the plan, this release is intended as a test of the new
infrastructure, and other releases in the 1.3.x series are expected.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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