I can take a look at this.  Committers, are we OK with my fixing 10173 for beta-3?

--G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Börkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 4:48 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: COMMITTERS PLEASE READ: beta-3 "mustfix" bug summary
> 
> 
> HI!
> 
> Could someone please look at 10173? This problem forced us 
> back to Beta 1 and will prevent us from using Beta 3.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Glen Daniels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Montag, 1. Juli 2002 05:21
> > To: Axis-Dev (E-mail)
> > Subject: COMMITTERS PLEASE READ: beta-3 "mustfix" bug summary
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Here are the "musts" for beta-3, and what I can tell of their 
> > current status.  If any of this is inaccurate, please let me know.
> > 
> > M 8476 - must - Rich
> > 
> >   Looks like this is due to an "id" attribute.  Rich suggests 
> > closing it.
> > 
> > M 8646 - must - ?
> > 
> >   I can take this one tomorrow.  I'll add a test which forces 
> > a serialization
> >   exception and confirms that we propagate it up correctly.
> > 
> > M 9393 - must - Rich
> > 
> >   No information - Rich?
> > 
> > M 9405 - must - Tom
> > 
> >   Tom has a fix for this in process, needs a little more 
> > testing.  We should
> >   be able to nail it tomorrow.
> > 
> > M 9717 - must - Tom
> > 
> >   Dealing with the basic set of schema types is being 
> worked around by
> >   having a "not supported" exception for those types we don't 
> > handle.  This
> >   doesn't solve the problem, but makes for a more 
> > comprehensible message.
> >   Longer term, we have to deal more gracefully with types + 
> > schema constructs
> >   which we don't understand yet.
> > 
> > M 9780 - must - Rick
> > 
> >   Per Rick's last comment, there is a fix but it's a "work in 
> > progress".  Rick,
> >   should we expect more here for beta-3?
> > 
> > M 9987 - must - Glen
> > 
> >   Waiting for opinions, but my feeling is to just leave the 
> > code as it is and
> >   mark the bug invalid, since several JDK APIs do this same thing.
> > 
> > --Glen
> > 
> 

Reply via email to