Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: COMMITTERS PLEASE READ: beta-3 "mustfix" bug summary
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
> >
>
