Re: xmlsec-1.4beta2 released

2006-08-21 Thread Frank Cornelis
Hi, When using WSS4J with xmlsec 1.3.0 all works fine. When I switch the runtime to use xmlsec 1.4.Beta2, then I get the following NPE: Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException at org.apache.xml.security.signature.SignedInfo.getCanonicalizationMethodURI(Unknown Source) at or

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40290] New: - NPE SignedInfo.getCanonicalizationMethodURI 1.4.Beta2

2006-08-21 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40290] - NPE SignedInfo.getCanonicalizationMethodURI 1.4.Beta2

2006-08-21 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

C++ library checking openssl version properly?

2006-08-21 Thread Scott Cantor
Either the config header in 1.3RC is off, or I'm missing something. The code in the Win32 config header looks like: # if (OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x00907000) # define XSEC_OPENSSL_CONST_BUFFERS # define XSEC_OPENSSL_HAVE_AES # define XSEC_OPENSSL_C

RE: C++ library checking openssl version properly?

2006-08-21 Thread Scott Cantor
Oops, never mind that. Misread the constant and some Visual Studio weirdness was fooling me. -- Scott

Re: C++ library checking openssl version properly?

2006-08-21 Thread Michael McIntosh
Seems strange - I would expect them all to be defined since 0x0090801fL > 0x00908000 > 0x00907000. Mike Michael McIntosh Web Services Security Group Security, Networking, and Privacy Department IBM Research "Scott Cantor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/21/2006 04:01:52 PM: > Either the conf

RE: C++ library checking openssl version properly?

2006-08-21 Thread Scott Cantor
> Seems strange - I would expect them all to be defined since > 0x0090801fL > > 0x00908000 > > 0x00907000. They were, the font was a bit small/hard to read so I missed the (f) and the macros weren't getting resolved by the symbol browser, the headers must be too convoluted for it. -- Scott