You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@santuario.apache.org by Joris Wijlens <jo...@whitehorses.nl> on 2004/09/30 22:15:12 UTC
jdk1.3 compatability
Hi,
Is version 1.2 still going to be compatible with jre 1.3. I tried to
compile HEAD from CVS (30-sep-2004) with a sdk 1.3 compiler and got
these messages:
[javac]
D:\workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\c14n\implementations\CanonicalizerBase.java:82:
cannot resolve symbol
[javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
(java.lang.String,java.lang.Exception)
[javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
[javac] throw new RuntimeException("Unable to create nullNode",e);
[javac] ^
[javac]
D:\workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\signature\SignedInfo.java:275:
cannot resolve symbol
[javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException (java.io.IOException)
[javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
[javac] throw new RuntimeException(e);
[javac] ^
[javac]
D:\workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\utils\CachedXPathFuncHereAPI.java:340:
cannot resolve symbol
[javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
(java.lang.String,javax.xml.transform.TransformerException)
[javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
[javac] throw new
RuntimeException(I18n.translate("endorsed.jdk1.4.0"),ex);
[javac] ^
[javac]
D:\workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\utils\SignerOutputStream.java:49:
cannot resolve symbol
[javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
(org.apache.xml.security.signature.XMLSignatureException)
[javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
[javac] throw new RuntimeException(e);
[javac] ^
[javac]
D:\workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\utils\SignerOutputStream.java:58:
cannot resolve symbol
[javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
(org.apache.xml.security.signature.XMLSignatureException)
[javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
[javac] throw new RuntimeException(e);
[javac] ^
[javac]
D:\workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\utils\SignerOutputStream.java:68:
cannot resolve symbol
[javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
(org.apache.xml.security.signature.XMLSignatureException)
[javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
[javac] throw new RuntimeException(e);
[javac] ^
[javac] 6 errors
Thanks,
Joris Wijlens
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Whitehorses B.V.
Dukatenburg 84a, Nieuwegein, +31 (0)30 - 600 4720
Malburgse Sluis 27, Arnhem, +31 (0)26 - 322 6900
Mobiel: +31 (0)6 - 5200 2532
Meer weten over nieuwe en interessante Oracle en Java ontwikkelingen?
Wat ze voor u betekenen en wat u er aan heeft?
Lees dan onze maandelijkse Whitebooks op www.whitehorses.nl.
Re: Request to remove from email list. Thanks.
Posted by "B. Mak" <bk...@rogers.com>.
Hi,
Please remove my email address from your email list. Thanks.
Regards,
bkl.mak@rogers.com
Raul Benito wrote:
> Vishal Mahajan wrote:
>
>> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>>
>>> OK - I've tested with 1.3 and I get the following :
>>>
>>> - All Encryption tests get skipped, with an error about algorithm not
>>> supported. Now that's possibly true in 1.3 but see below.
>>> - All Signature tests pass *except* anything with a SHA1 HMAC -
>>> something about algorithm not found. Now I would have thought SHA1
>>> HMACs would work with 1.3?
>>>
>>> So I then moved to a 1.4 JDK and get :
>>>
>>> - All encryption tests get skipped as for 1.3. That's *not* good -
>>> I'll have a look this arvo to see what I can come up with.
>>
>>
> I have found where the problem is. Before the JCE mapping simply
> patch any provider that is in the classpath is used, now as there is
> no code to search the providers in the classpath you need to tell the
> JCE to use your provider explicitly with:
> Security.addProvider(new BouncyCastleProvider());
> for example.
>
> Berin, if you put this line in a static block in the test case
> everything works.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raul
> http://r-bg.com
>
>
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by Raul Benito <ra...@r-bg.com>.
Vishal Mahajan wrote:
> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
>> OK - I've tested with 1.3 and I get the following :
>>
>> - All Encryption tests get skipped, with an error about algorithm not
>> supported. Now that's possibly true in 1.3 but see below.
>> - All Signature tests pass *except* anything with a SHA1 HMAC -
>> something about algorithm not found. Now I would have thought SHA1
>> HMACs would work with 1.3?
>>
>> So I then moved to a 1.4 JDK and get :
>>
>> - All encryption tests get skipped as for 1.3. That's *not* good -
>> I'll have a look this arvo to see what I can come up with.
>
I have found where the problem is. Before the JCE mapping simply patch
any provider that is in the classpath is used, now as there is no code
to search the providers in the classpath you need to tell the JCE to use
your provider explicitly with:
Security.addProvider(new BouncyCastleProvider());
for example.
Berin, if you put this line in a static block in the test case
everything works.
Regards,
Raul
http://r-bg.com
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by Vishal Mahajan <Vi...@Sun.COM>.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> OK - I've tested with 1.3 and I get the following :
>
> - All Encryption tests get skipped, with an error about algorithm not
> supported. Now that's possibly true in 1.3 but see below.
> - All Signature tests pass *except* anything with a SHA1 HMAC -
> something about algorithm not found. Now I would have thought SHA1
> HMACs would work with 1.3?
>
> So I then moved to a 1.4 JDK and get :
>
> - All encryption tests get skipped as for 1.3. That's *not* good -
> I'll have a look this arvo to see what I can come up with.
It might be because JDK 1.4 didn't support some encryption algorithms.
Did you try in presence of some third party provider?
>
> - All Signature tests pass - should HMAC SHA1 be supported in 1.3?
Not sure about this.
Vishal
>
>
> Cheers,
> Berin
>
> Raul Benito wrote:
>
>> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say +1 as well - but that means we need to fix this prior to
>>> creating a new package. So I'd say go for a simple fix.
>>>
>>> Sound reasonable?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Berin
>>>
>> I've just commit the simple fix but as I don't manage to install a
>> jdk1.3 in my gentoo, can someone test if everything compiles ok.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Raul
>> http://r-bg.com
>>
>>
>
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by ra...@r-bg.com.
On 10/10/2004, at 1:32, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> OK - I've tested with 1.3 and I get the following :
>
> - All Encryption tests get skipped, with an error about algorithm not
> supported. Now that's possibly true in 1.3 but see below.
> - All Signature tests pass *except* anything with a SHA1 HMAC -
> something about algorithm not found. Now I would have thought SHA1
> HMACs would work with 1.3?
>
> So I then moved to a 1.4 JDK and get :
>
> - All encryption tests get skipped as for 1.3. That's *not* good -
> I'll have a look this arvo to see what I can come up with.
> - All Signature tests pass - should HMAC SHA1 be supported in 1.3?
>
> Cheers,
> Berin
I have investigate and it doesn't seem to be related to the jdk1.3
patch (it just change the way some exceptions are created). It seems
more related to the previous patch to remove the JCEMappings I will
investigate a little more and I will tell you.
Regards,
Raul
>
> Raul Benito wrote:
>> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>>> I'd say +1 as well - but that means we need to fix this prior to
>>> creating a new package. So I'd say go for a simple fix.
>>>
>>> Sound reasonable?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Berin
>>>
>> I've just commit the simple fix but as I don't manage to install a
>> jdk1.3 in my gentoo, can someone test if everything compiles ok.
>> Regards,
>> Raul
>> http://r-bg.com
>
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
OK - I've tested with 1.3 and I get the following :
- All Encryption tests get skipped, with an error about algorithm not
supported. Now that's possibly true in 1.3 but see below.
- All Signature tests pass *except* anything with a SHA1 HMAC -
something about algorithm not found. Now I would have thought SHA1
HMACs would work with 1.3?
So I then moved to a 1.4 JDK and get :
- All encryption tests get skipped as for 1.3. That's *not* good - I'll
have a look this arvo to see what I can come up with.
- All Signature tests pass - should HMAC SHA1 be supported in 1.3?
Cheers,
Berin
Raul Benito wrote:
> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
>> I'd say +1 as well - but that means we need to fix this prior to
>> creating a new package. So I'd say go for a simple fix.
>>
>> Sound reasonable?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Berin
>>
> I've just commit the simple fix but as I don't manage to install a
> jdk1.3 in my gentoo, can someone test if everything compiles ok.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raul
> http://r-bg.com
>
>
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by Raul Benito <ra...@r-bg.com>.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> I'd say +1 as well - but that means we need to fix this prior to
> creating a new package. So I'd say go for a simple fix.
>
> Sound reasonable?
>
> Cheers,
> Berin
>
I've just commit the simple fix but as I don't manage to install a
jdk1.3 in my gentoo, can someone test if everything compiles ok.
Regards,
Raul
http://r-bg.com
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
I'd say +1 as well - but that means we need to fix this prior to
creating a new package. So I'd say go for a simple fix.
Sound reasonable?
Cheers,
Berin
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Raul,
>
> till all the major app servers are moved off of JDK1.3 (for production
> environment), we cannot stop supporting it. So, here's my +1 to
> support 1.3 at least for a bit more time.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:13:38 +0200, raul-info@r-bg.com
> <ra...@r-bg.com> wrote:
>
>>On 30/09/2004, at 22:15, Joris Wijlens wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Is version 1.2 still going to be compatible with jre 1.3. I tried to
>>>compile HEAD from CVS (30-sep-2004) with a sdk 1.3 compiler and got
>>>these messages:
>>>
>>>[javac]
>>>D:
>>>\workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\c14n\implementations
>>>\CanonicalizerBase.java:82: cannot resolve symbol
>>> [javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
>>>(java.lang.String,java.lang.Exception)
>>> [javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
>>> [javac] throw new RuntimeException("Unable to create nullNode",e);
>>> [javac] ^
>>
>>
>>Ok, I'll see in the jdk 1.3 there is no Exception(String reason,
>>Exception rootException) constructor, that's way it fails compilling it
>>won't very dificult to fix poorly, but if we don't want to loose
>>information when running in 1.4 we'll need something like tomcat is
>>used with one class that wraps the diferences between the jdks.
>>Anyhow I'll don't know how big is the interest of supporting jre 1.3
>>please raise your hands/email so I can see if worth the effort of doing
>>more or less hacky for xml-sec 1.2 or we do right but for latter
>>version.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Raul
>>http://r-bg.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Raul,
till all the major app servers are moved off of JDK1.3 (for production
environment), we cannot stop supporting it. So, here's my +1 to
support 1.3 at least for a bit more time.
thanks,
dims
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:13:38 +0200, raul-info@r-bg.com
<ra...@r-bg.com> wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2004, at 22:15, Joris Wijlens wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is version 1.2 still going to be compatible with jre 1.3. I tried to
> > compile HEAD from CVS (30-sep-2004) with a sdk 1.3 compiler and got
> > these messages:
> >
> > [javac]
> > D:
> > \workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\c14n\implementations
> > \CanonicalizerBase.java:82: cannot resolve symbol
> > [javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
> > (java.lang.String,java.lang.Exception)
> > [javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
> > [javac] throw new RuntimeException("Unable to create nullNode",e);
> > [javac] ^
>
>
> Ok, I'll see in the jdk 1.3 there is no Exception(String reason,
> Exception rootException) constructor, that's way it fails compilling it
> won't very dificult to fix poorly, but if we don't want to loose
> information when running in 1.4 we'll need something like tomcat is
> used with one class that wraps the diferences between the jdks.
> Anyhow I'll don't know how big is the interest of supporting jre 1.3
> please raise your hands/email so I can see if worth the effort of doing
> more or less hacky for xml-sec 1.2 or we do right but for latter
> version.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raul
> http://r-bg.com
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
RE: jdk1.3 compatibility
Posted by Philippe Ombredanne <po...@nexb.com>.
jdk 1.3 support
-1
with Java 5.0 just released, I am not sure it is worth the effort to
support 1.3.
as far as we are concerned we will be migrating all our code to java5
after the next release starting in a couple week.
I would rather have clean java5 support than java1.3 support....
May be Joris Wijlens could be interested in writing, and maintaining the
JDK 1.3 support him/herself?
;-)
--
Cheers
Philippe
philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com
Re: jdk1.3 compatability
Posted by ra...@r-bg.com.
On 30/09/2004, at 22:15, Joris Wijlens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is version 1.2 still going to be compatible with jre 1.3. I tried to
> compile HEAD from CVS (30-sep-2004) with a sdk 1.3 compiler and got
> these messages:
>
> [javac]
> D:
> \workspace\xml_sec_cvs\src\org\apache\xml\security\c14n\implementations
> \CanonicalizerBase.java:82: cannot resolve symbol
> [javac] symbol : constructor RuntimeException
> (java.lang.String,java.lang.Exception)
> [javac] location: class java.lang.RuntimeException
> [javac] throw new RuntimeException("Unable to create nullNode",e);
> [javac] ^
Ok, I'll see in the jdk 1.3 there is no Exception(String reason,
Exception rootException) constructor, that's way it fails compilling it
won't very dificult to fix poorly, but if we don't want to loose
information when running in 1.4 we'll need something like tomcat is
used with one class that wraps the diferences between the jdks.
Anyhow I'll don't know how big is the interest of supporting jre 1.3
please raise your hands/email so I can see if worth the effort of doing
more or less hacky for xml-sec 1.2 or we do right but for latter
version.
Regards,
Raul
http://r-bg.com