DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49190] JSR 105 exceptions should not have it's own 'cause' field
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190 --- Comment #1 from sean.mul...@sun.com 2010-04-27 09:46:41 EDT --- There is a reason behind this design. JSR 105 was designed to run on JDK 1.2 and up. This is documented in the API dependencies of the JSR 105 specification: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr105/index.html . The Exception(Throwable cause) constructor did not get added to the JDK until version 1.4, so we could not use them. Having said that, Apache XML Security requires JDK 1.4 and up, so we should be able to change this implementation of JSR 105 to invoke these constructors. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49190] JSR 105 exceptions should not have it's own 'cause' field
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190 --- Comment #2 from Zoran Regvart zregv...@gmail.com 2010-04-27 10:05:11 EDT --- Sean, thanks for the prompt reply. Being that you are one of the maintenance leads of the JSR, what are the chances of updating the required JDK to 1.4, or even 1.5 -- the xml-dsig API would certainly benefit from generics? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49190] JSR 105 exceptions should not have it's own 'cause' field
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190 --- Comment #3 from sean.mul...@oracle.com 2010-04-27 15:25:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Sean, thanks for the prompt reply. Being that you are one of the maintenance leads of the JSR, what are the chances of updating the required JDK to 1.4, or even 1.5 -- the xml-dsig API would certainly benefit from generics? No immediate plans. There are other minor API changes I would like to make as well, but all in all the API has been holding up pretty well since it was finalized. Also I would be interested in seeing if we could create a smaller API that would be more suitable for memory constrained platforms or for those that don't need all the bells and whistles of XML Signature. There is also the ongoing work of XML Signature 2.0 in the W3C XML Security working group and that will probably require changes to the API if it gains traction. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
