[s2] Release feedback

Ok, so this time, it took probably two hours to generate the release all told. The guide is now pretty accurate, but the steps themselves can take quite a while. This time, I copied my keys, m2 config, etc. over to a server in the US and ran the release from there, and boy, what a difference

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

2008/5/2 Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [X] Alpha (+0) I vote +0 to Alpha because, from the License point of view, there are minor problems, but I did not test the build as a software artifact. Antonio - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ] Leave at test build [ ] Alpha [X] Beta [ ] General Availability (GA) I don't think it is stable enough for a GA (and there are apparent licensing issues I guess), but I think it is good enough to be BETA and to get

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

What license issues do you see exactly? The RAT tool passed, which checks all the code for headers, and that is really what matters. If it is just some issues about licenses on test or example code, I don't see how that would provoke an alpha label. Don On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Antonio

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

2008/5/2 Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What license issues do you see exactly? The RAT tool passed, which checks all the code for headers, and that is really what matters. If it is just some issues about licenses on test or example code, I don't see how that would provoke an alpha label.

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

2008/5/2 Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Remember, beta means it is feature complete but there are known issues, and I think that is what we have here. Well, not completely correct. Beta also means that the API won't change much, while Alpha means that the API can change a lot. Antonio

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

Yep, and it won't. This is basically what the GA release will look like minus the bugs (hopefully). No more API changes. Don On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Antonio Petrelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/5/2 Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Remember, beta means it is feature complete but there

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

I disabled it for the Struts 2.1.1 build, but I just rolled the Struts 2.1.2 build a hour or so ago from trunk, which has the RAT plugin enabled for releases. Don On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Antonio Petrelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/5/2 Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What license

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

2008/5/2 Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I disabled it for the Struts 2.1.1 build, but I just rolled the Struts 2.1.2 build a hour or so ago from trunk, which has the RAT plugin enabled for releases. Ok :-) I change my vote to +0 for Beta (for the same reasons). Antonio

Re: Fundamental flaw in Model-Driven?

It'll probably be around the tx...I've been doing this within Swing apps, trying to fix the wizard in Netbeans around JSR 295, 296 and JPA. Come see my presentation at JavaOne on the subject ;) But I need to see if this can be applied to this situation. I still don't get how changes done while

Re: Fundamental flaw in Model-Driven?

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Eric D. Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Snaps alex.snaps at gmail.com writes: I know I am repeating myself, but what is getting in the way of NOT starting a transaction at all in the case of a validation error... Shoudn't the transaction be

Re: ActionValidatorManagerFactory

Hi Jay, This question about the use of Struts 2 should be asked in the struts-users forum. The quick answer is that XWork provides a DI mechanism. The ValidatorFactory can be injected into a property or constructor using the @Inject annotation in objects created by the framework. See the

Re: Fundamental flaw in Model-Driven?

My curiosity finally got the better of me and I put the JPA transaction issue to test, and I have to concur with you. What threw me off the scent is the update method I have on my business managers, on which the transactional boundary is set in Spring. The update() method doesn't sit well

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

Also +1 for beta. On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ] Leave at test build [ ] Alpha [X] Beta [ ] General Availability (GA) I don't think it is stable enough for a GA (and there

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

+1 [X] Beta On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Struts 2.1.2 test build is now available. Release notes: * http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/version-notes-212.html Distribution: * http://people.apache.org/builds/struts/2.1.2/ Maven 2 staging

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

+1 Beta Herrera mrdon wrote: The Struts 2.1.2 test build is now available. Release notes: * http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/version-notes-212.html Distribution: * http://people.apache.org/builds/struts/2.1.2/ Maven 2 staging repository: *

struts2-api-2.1.2.jar ?

This appears to be missing from the 2.1.2 candidate... Is this file no longer relevant? -Dale - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: struts2-api-2.1.2.jar ?

It was moved to the sandbox as it was never finished. musachy On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Dale Newfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This appears to be missing from the 2.1.2 candidate... Is this file no longer relevant? -Dale

Re: [struts-dev] struts2-api-2.1.2.jar ?

Musachy Barroso wrote: It was moved to the sandbox as it was never finished. D'oh! I just confirmed--I've been including it but not using anything from it for quite a while. Whoops. Thanks for the clarification. OK, how 'bout this? Why does the release (at least the lib version) contain

Re: [VOTE] Struts 2.1.2 test build

+1 [X] Beta - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]