tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1521817 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Date Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:55:28 GMT
On 11/09/2013 14:44, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2013/9/11  <markt@apache.org>:
>> Author: markt
>> Date: Wed Sep 11 11:59:37 2013
>> New Revision: 1521817
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1521817
>> Log:
>> Comment
>>
>> Modified:
>>     tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
>>
>> Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt?rev=1521817&r1=1521816&r2=1521817&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt (original)
>> +++ tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt Wed Sep 11 11:59:37 2013
>> @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT:
>>       I think @Target change for @DenyAll is wrong.
>>       Looking at Geronimo, @DenyAll has "@Target({ElementType.METHOD})" in CA 1.0
there.
>>       It is "@Target({ElementType.TYPE, ElementType.METHOD})" starting with CA 1.1.
>> +     markt:
>> +     The CA 1.0 spec section 2.11 is explicit that DenyAll is permitted on
>> +     classes. Geronimo and whatever source was used generate the official Java
>> +     EE 5 Javadoc are wrong.
> 
> Ah, I see it.
> 
> Nevertheless, it looks to me that it is not just a typo, but a genuine
> error, that was corrected in CA 1.1. It is mentioned in changelog,
> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/maintenance/jsr250/250ChangeLog.html
> -> "Maintenance Review 1," -> "2. Change the definition of the
> @DenyAll annotation"

That looks like a Javadoc / implementation correction to me. The EG's
aren't always very good at keeping spec issues and RI issues separate.

> Unless there is some evidence in mailing lists elsewhere, I think the
> question is which version of the class would pass a TCK. I think that
> Geronimo classes might have been tested better, than ones in Tomcat.

If the Tomcat version failed a TCK, I'd challenge the failure on the
grounds of the CA 1.0 spec section 2.11.

Mark


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


Mime
View raw message