David, thanks for the rsponse. I'm going to commit the automatic positioning work I've done today (to the HEAD, not the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH).
Thanks for the pointer to changes.xml - I'll update that today with the changes I've made. Can I cut a release using the "ant release" task or do I have to use maven - I know next to nothing about maven :-( Niall ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release > > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I decided to have a go a resolving a couple of Struts bugs to do with > > bundles/resources and validator: > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18169 > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21760 > > > > Currently theres an inconsitency in how Struts handles bundles since > > although the validator dtd allows users to specify alternative bundles - > > Struts completely ignores them. Seems to me this is a big weakness in > > how > > handles Strut's bundles if validator can't take acount of them. > > > > Specifically Struts ignores the following validator DTD attributes: > > * the msg elements 'bundle' attribute > > * the msg elements 'resource' attribute > > * the arg elements 'bundle' attribute > > > > Fixing Struts required a couple of small changes to Commons Validator, > > which > > I've just done - it was already subject to the following outstanding > > bugzilla request: > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29452 > > > > In order to now fix Struts there needs to be a release of Commons > > Validator > > with this change in and I'm wondering about the following: > > > > 1) Version 1.1.4 or Version 1.2.0 > > ======================== > > I wan't sure what the difference between the whats in the HEAD (Version > > 1.2.0) and the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH (Version 1.1.3) - but from a quick > > scan a summary of the differences is: > > > > * Form Inheritance functionality (new extends attribute) > > * Loads of deprecations removed (including arg0 to arg3) > > * A number of minor bug fixes > > Those are the only differences I can remember. > > > > > I guess it would be good to have only one branch and release Version > > 1.2.0 > > but I'm wondering whether the Form Inheritance is fully tested and > > working > > and also, given all the deprecations removed, whether it might be better > > (upgrade wise for the users) to release Version 1.1.4 from the > > VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH. > > I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been > included in a release yet. > > The branch name should have been VALIDATOR_1_1_BRANCH so that it could > logically support multiple 1.1.x releases. However, it's not named that > so I guess we'll just have to release 1.1.4 from that branch and deal with > the minor confusion. I'd like to limit the number of releases in the 1.1 > series and move on to 1.2 so we can get rid of the gross arg0-4 stuff for > good. > > > > > > > 2) Arg's Position Parameter - Bug 31194 > > ============================== > > While doing this stuff on validator I came across the following > > enhancement > > request: > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194 > > > > It looked like a good idea and I've attached a patch for review which > > implements this request. Personally, if the decision is to go with a > > Version > > 1.2.0 release - I wouldn't want to upgrade to 1.2.0 without this > > enhancement > > being applied - when replacing arg0 - arg3 I could get away with not > > having > > to add a position attribute if this enhacement was done. > > I agree that automatic positioning should be included in 1.2.0. > > > > > The easiest route - Struts wise is to go the Version 1.1.4 route. It > > would > > mean zero impact on the users, except having to drop the new jar in. > > Validator wise, we should probably get the Version 1.2.0 out of the door > > and > > just support one version. > > > > I'd rather go the 1.1.4 route but I'd appreciate hearing what others > > think. > > I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet > another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their xml > accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's > finally released. > > If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're > using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the same > time as making a code change or fixing a bug. > > Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall! > > David > > > > > Niall > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
