1. -1, if other things hold up the release for a few days I change my vote
to -0.
2. +1, Russell are you fixing this right now ?
3. +1 to removing the C++ implementation for beta 2. Beta 2 quality is
applicable to java for this release.
Rich Scheuerle
XML & Web Services Development
512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
Russell
Butek/Austin/IBM@ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBMUS cc:
Subject: Issues with beta 2 - does it
need more work?
04/29/2002 10:45
AM
Please respond to
axis-dev
Over the weekend some folks played with beta 2 rc 1. I've seen a number of
issues related to it.
1. Glen found and fixed a problem with bean field names - capitalized vs
lowercase (in the head branch - NOT in the beta 2 branch). Glen and I
determined that this should not go into beta2, but we should ask the wider
community. Should this fix go into beta 2?
2. There's a problem with our mapping of xsd:date (thanks to Tom Mikalsen
for finding it). It used to work in beta 1. It doesn't in beta 2. Since
it's a regression, the fix is a good candidate for inclusion in beta 2.
Here's the relevant code in
org/apache/axis/encoding/DefaultTypeMappingImpl.java:
myRegister(Constants.XSD_DATE1, java.util.Calendar.class,
new DateSerializerFactory(java.util.Date.class,
Constants.XSD_DATE1),
new DateDeserializerFactory(java.util.Date.class,
Constants.XSD_DATE1),
true);
Note that we're mixing Calendar and Date in this code. It should be all
Calendar or all Date. I suggest it should be all Date because
CalendarDeserializer assumes a time portion as well, which doesn't exist in
xsd:date. (And after beta2 we should write a test for this as well!)
3. The C++ code is in the source distribution. Do we want that to be
there? It implies that we're distributing a C++ implementation which we're
not yet. I think we should remove the C++ files from the beta 2
distribution.
Any other issues?
At this point my votes for changing the beta 2 for these issues are:
1. -0
2. +1
3. +0
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
