You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ws.apache.org by "Colm O hEigeartaigh (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2019/01/28 10:42:00 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (WSS-642) Use LinkedHashSet instead of TreeSet
within getInclusivePrefixes
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WSS-642?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Colm O hEigeartaigh updated WSS-642:
------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 2.2.3
> Use LinkedHashSet instead of TreeSet within getInclusivePrefixes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WSS-642
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WSS-642
> Project: WSS4J
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: WSS4J Core
> Affects Versions: 2.2.2
> Reporter: Joseph Athman
> Assignee: Colm O hEigeartaigh
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.2.3
>
>
> WSS-626 changed the implementation of the SignatureUtils#getInclusivePrefixes method to use a Set instead of a List. This change makes sense, however it changes the order that the prefixes had historically been returned by this method. A client of ours is having a problem with the new ordering. Although this is certainly a bug on their end, it seems reasonable to replicate the previous behavior of this method as closely as possible while still fixing the bug reported in the issue.
> I'd like to suggest using a LinkedHashSet instead of a TreeSet as the Set implementation in this method. The LHS preserves the insertion order as the order the elements are returned in. This should make this method behave as closely as possible prior to the 2.2.2 release of WSS4J.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ws.apache.org