commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [Validator] Next Release
Date Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:45:01 GMT
David, thanks for the rsponse.

I'm going to commit the automatic positioning work I've done today (to the
HEAD, not the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH).

Thanks for the pointer to changes.xml - I'll update that today with the
changes I've made.

Can I cut a release using the "ant release" task or do I have to use maven -
I know next to nothing about maven :-(

Niall

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Graham" <grahamdavid1980@yahoo.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release


>
> --- Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I decided to have a go a resolving a couple of Struts bugs to do with
> > bundles/resources and validator:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18169
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21760
> >
> > Currently theres an inconsitency in how Struts handles bundles since
> > although the validator dtd allows users to specify alternative bundles -
> > Struts completely ignores them. Seems to me this is a big weakness in
> > how
> > handles Strut's bundles if validator can't take acount of them.
> >
> > Specifically Struts ignores the following validator DTD attributes:
> >     *    the msg elements 'bundle' attribute
> >     *    the msg elements 'resource' attribute
> >     *    the arg elements 'bundle' attribute
> >
> > Fixing Struts required a couple of small changes to Commons Validator,
> > which
> > I've just done - it was already subject to the following outstanding
> > bugzilla request:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29452
> >
> > In order to now fix Struts there needs to be a release of Commons
> > Validator
> > with this change in and I'm wondering about the following:
> >
> > 1) Version 1.1.4 or Version 1.2.0
> > ========================
> > I wan't sure what the difference between the whats in the HEAD (Version
> > 1.2.0) and the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH (Version 1.1.3) - but from a quick
> > scan a summary of the differences is:
> >
> >     *    Form Inheritance functionality (new extends attribute)
> >     *    Loads of deprecations removed (including arg0 to arg3)
> >     *    A number of minor bug fixes
>
> Those are the only differences I can remember.
>
> >
> > I guess it would be good to have only one branch and release Version
> > 1.2.0
> > but I'm wondering whether the Form Inheritance is fully tested and
> > working
> > and also, given all the deprecations removed, whether it might be better
> > (upgrade wise for the users) to release Version 1.1.4 from the
> > VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH.
>
> I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been
> included in a release yet.
>
> The branch name should have been VALIDATOR_1_1_BRANCH so that it could
> logically support multiple 1.1.x releases.  However, it's not named that
> so I guess we'll just have to release 1.1.4 from that branch and deal with
> the minor confusion.  I'd like to limit the number of releases in the 1.1
> series and move on to 1.2 so we can get rid of the gross arg0-4 stuff for
> good.
>
> >
> >
> > 2) Arg's Position Parameter - Bug 31194
> > ==============================
> > While doing this stuff on validator I came across the following
> > enhancement
> > request:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
> >
> > It looked like a good idea and I've attached a patch for review which
> > implements this request. Personally, if the decision is to go with a
> > Version
> > 1.2.0 release - I wouldn't want to upgrade to 1.2.0 without this
> > enhancement
> > being applied - when replacing arg0 - arg3 I could get away with not
> > having
> > to add a position attribute if this enhacement was done.
>
> I agree that automatic positioning should be included in 1.2.0.
>
> >
> > The easiest route - Struts wise is to go the Version 1.1.4 route. It
> > would
> > mean zero impact on the users, except having to drop the new jar in.
> > Validator wise, we should probably get the Version 1.2.0 out of the door
> > and
> > just support one version.
> >
> > I'd rather go the 1.1.4 route but I'd appreciate hearing what others
> > think.
>
> I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea.  This will give users yet
> another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their xml
> accordingly.  That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's
> finally released.
>
> If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're
> using that as our release notes.  I usually update this file at the same
> time as making a code change or fixing a bug.
>
> Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall!
>
> David
>
> >
> > Niall
> >



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message