commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <>
Subject Re: VOTE: Release commons-fileupload 1.2
Date Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:22:04 GMT
On 11/15/06, Jochen Wiedmann <> wrote:
> Hi,
> after the release of commons-parent, the hurdles for publishing the
> next version of commons-fileupload have now gone. So I'd like to
> request a release of
>     Commons Fileupload 1.2
> The proposed distributables can be found at
> The proposed web site is at
> Notable changes in 1.2 are:
> - Made Streams.asString static. Thanks to Aaron Freeman.
> - Eliminated duplicate code. (FILEUPLOAD-109)
> - Added a streaming API. (FILEUPLOAD-112)
> - Eliminated the necessity of a content-length header. (FILEUPLOAD-93)
> - Eliminated the limitation of a maximum size for a single header
> line. (FILEUPLOAD-108)
>   Thanks to Amichai Rothman.
> - Added the ProgressListener, which allows to implement a progress bar.
> - Added support for header continuation lines. (FILEUPLOAD-111)
>   Thanks to Amichai Rothman.
> - It is now possible to limit the actual file size and not the request size.
>   (FILEUPLOAD-88) Thanks to Andrey Aristarkhov.
> Please cast your vote:
> [] +1
> [] =0
> [] -1

I would have preferred the release be cut using maven1 rather than m2.
The maven1 build is tried and tested and the gripes of those of us
that checked out previous releases have been fixed in the maven1
build. I guess that doesn't matter if the release is up to scratch but
would be interested to know if others think we're ready for releases
using m2 yet?

The first issue I have with checking out this RC is that you've only
posted the "tar.gz" source and binary distros. I would have liked to
see the full set - zip versions and md5 checksums (the maven1 build
for fileupload creates the md5 checksums for you).

I think there are three serious issues with this RC:
1) It doesn't comply with the new "ASF Source Header and Copyright
Notice Policy":

2) According to the jar's manifest file its been built using JDK
1.6.0-rc. Even if JDK 1.6 had been (just) released using it for a
release would make me nervous - but using a RC version of Java to cut
the fileupload release is bad news IMO.

3) The clirr report you produced: which shows the following
incompatibilities with the previous fileupload version:

1) FileUploadBase - public constant MAX_HEADER_SIZE removed.
2) FileUploadBase - protected method createItem removed
3) FileUploadBase - two public constructors for
SizeLimitExceededException removed
4) FileUploadBase - public static class UnknownSizeException removed
5) MulitpartStream - gone from public to package visibility

For these reasons my vote is -1.

One thing thats disappointing is that the last fileupload release had
only 5 checkstyle issues. This one has 376 of which 200 are for tab
characters which I personally dislike in source.

Looking at the source distro "rat" report for the nightly build - its
showing 7 missing license headers - the 2 that stand out are for the
test cases: FileUploadTestCase and ProgressListenerTest:


> Jochen

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message