Actually better and complete fix at r1177926. I should have backported it when
doing r1021344
Jacques
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Fixed at r1177923, see also my answer to Scott's, I did no read your message
before. I think we would never get to this point,
anyway better safe than sorry, since it
What bug?
On 1/10/2011, at 8:25 AM, jler...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jleroux
Date: Fri Sep 30 19:25:16 2011
New Revision: 1177789
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1177789view=rev
Log:
Fix a bug reported by Martin Sanchez Vivo on user ML
Modified:
http://markmail.org/message/4b37lgy7ymsfg43u
I was able to reproduce
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
What bug?
On 1/10/2011, at 8:25 AM, jler...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jleroux
Date: Fri Sep 30 19:25:16 2011
New Revision: 1177789
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1177789view=rev
Log:
Fix
Also, this introduces a bug: a hard-coded dependence on the default
delegator. The delegator name for this should always comes from the
webapp, which is configured in the web.xml file.
-David
Scott Gray wrote:
What bug?
On 1/10/2011, at 8:25 AM, jler...@apache.org wrote:
Author:
Two things:
1. By asking What bug? I was trying to remind you to add proper details to
commit messages.
2. Are you sure this is the correct fix? I'm pretty sure we moved away from
using a default delegator when the tenant stuff was added.
Maybe the deeper question is Why is delegator name
Scott Gray wrote:
Two things:
1. By asking What bug? I was trying to remind you to add proper details to
commit messages.
Agreed and done
2. Are you sure this is the correct fix? I'm pretty sure we moved away from
using a default delegator when the tenant stuff was
added.
Actually, I
Fixed at r1177923, see also my answer to Scott's, I did no read your message
before. I think we would never get to this point,
anyway better safe than sorry, since it was wrong.
Jacques
David E Jones wrote:
Also, this introduces a bug: a hard-coded dependence on the default
delegator. The
