> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chanoch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:27 AM
> To: 'Struts Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Future Release Suggestion
>
>
> If noone else is doing this, I've got a day or two to give to this....
Awesome! Thanks!
>
> Since support for 3.2 is being dropped - shall I replace the 32 target
> with a 33 target when submitting the diff?
You might as well leave the 3.2 tests there for now, just in case someone is
sufficiently determined to figure out a way to get Struts 1.1 working with
Tomcat 3.2.4. Both Craig and I looked at this before, and we decided it was
probably a Tomcat class loader bug. But someone else might figure out a way
to work around it.
--
Martin Cooper
>
>
> chanoch
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person
> or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
> use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer. Although we routinely screen for viruses,
> recipients should check this e-mail and any attachment for viruses. We
> make no warranty as to absence of viruses in this e-mail or any
> attachments.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 October 2002 00:22
> To: 'Struts Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Future Release Suggestion
>
>
> If you, or someone else with some time on their hands, are a Tomcat
> user, there is one thing that would be a big help.
>
> We have a series of unit tests that are run against different Tomcat
> versions. At this time, we have configurations for Tomcat 3.2, 4.0 and
> 4.1. However, we know that Struts does not work with Tomcat 3.2, and
> have decided to drop support for 3.2 in favour of 3.3.
> However, at this
> time we don't have a test configuration for 3.3.
>
> I started messing with this a while ago, and discovered that 3.3 is
> different enough from both 3.2 and 4.0 that blindly hacking at one of
> these didn't work. ;-) However, I'm not a Tomcat user, so not really
> familiar with what I needed to do to get it working.
>
> If someone is up for this, the place to look is
> build-tests.xml, in the
> root of the Struts source tree. There, you'll find targets such as
> 'test.tomcat.nn' where 'nn' is 32, 40 or 41. All we need is a
> 'test.tomcat.33' that works against Tomcat 3.3.1. ;-)
>
> Seriously, though, it would be great to get this working.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Honig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 4:05 PM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Future Release Suggestion
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> > With this in mind I'd like to announce that I've got some
> time on my
>
> > hands. Probably too much. So I'd like to attempt to get out of
> > lurker
> > mode and start helping out the committers. Can someone
> give me some
> > direction as to some bugs
> > that might be good to look at.
> > I'll probaby spend half a day getting up to speed on
> > catctus and the test
> > framework which is crucial for any patches I might suggest.
> > But I'd love
> > to have a few of the committers deputize me to go off and
> inspect some
> > issues. I've been collaborating with a couple guys on a tag
> > library for
> > WML.
> > They've had to do most of the work until now so part of my
> > effort is going
> > to be helping them validate it and get it ready for review
> > by the larger community.
> >
> >
> > -Daniel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 6:50 PM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Future Release Suggestion
> >
> >
> > As Craig pointed out recently, we all really do this for our
> > own use, and if
> > someone else can use it too, then
> > that's "icing on the cake".
> >
> > Most of the Committers are highly enough placed in their own
> > organizations
> > that they can use the nightly build
> > if they have to. So, the pressure to make incremental
> > releases has not been
> > so great.
> >
> > But a good portion of my income now comes from working with
> > teams that are
> > prohibited from using betas or a
> > nightly build. So, to keep shoes on the kids, I'm going to
> > need to work
> > toward more incremental releases, so
> > that my clients can use it (and so they can in turn use me ;0)
> >
> > But, yes, I think that down the road we will need to start
> looking for
>
> > reasons to cut a release. If we have several releases a year, then
> > there will be less pressure to slip in one
> > more "gotta have it", since the next
> > release won't be so far away.
> >
> > Of course, at this point the die is cast, and we need to
> > debug the features
> > already promised.
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> >
> > 10/15/2002 6:35:28 PM, David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I think the problem is that some very heavy hitters were
> > added into 1.1.
> > >Validator, sub modules, map backed form attributes, tiles,
> > RequestProcessor,
> > >Plugins, etc. are all new (AFAIK) to 1.1. This amount of
> > change requires
> > >quite a while to accomplish.
> > >
> > >It may be beneficial in the future to address bug fixes and
> > one big new
> > item
> > >per release. This way, production releases are more frequent.
> > >
> > >What do the comitters think?
> > >
> > >David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>Subject: RE: Struts 1.1 Release
> > >>Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:25:40 +0100
> > >>
> > >>I totally understand and agree with the release policy, but
> > I think it's
> > >>worth remembering that a lot of these questions are driven by the
> > >>constraints of users' environments - e.g. in corporate
> > environments like
> > >>ours, there any many people like myself continually
> > fighting to get great
> > >>open source products like Struts into the organisation so
> > that development
> > >>teams can use them, and the latest versions of them.
> > However, this has to
> > >>be done within the processes and policies that apply to any
> > third party
> > >>software, commercial or otherwise.
> > >>
> > >>Specifically, in our case, I am the product owner of Struts
> > here among
> > >>other products from the Apache family of projects here
> and it is my
>
> > >>responsibility to make the standard builds of Struts on
> our software
>
> > >>distribution servers so that development can reference this
> > for use by
> > >>their applications, as must be done for all external
> > software (it's an
> > >>audit point). However, in order to do this, I must get the
> > new version
> > >>approved by a central department which is extremely
> > difficult, if not
> > >>impossible for software that is tagged as beta regardless
> > of the quality.
> > >>(Yes, you can imagine how commercial software vendors deal
> > with this in
> > >>their versioning policy... :-( ) Therefore, all our
> applications are
>
> > >>currently stuck on v1.0.2 rather than the latest and greatest 1.1
> > >>regardless of how stable it may be in practice. I know
> > that we are not
> > >>alone in this kind of approach, and that this kind of
> > situation and red
> > >>tape is the reality in big organisations...
> > >>
> > >>Working in one of our architecture teams, I advise
> > application development
> > >>teams in our area when it comes to working out and
> > implementing their
> > >>roadmaps, and part of this requires the recommendation of
> > technologies on
> > >>the basis of an understanding of when certain products such
> > as Struts can
> > >>be made available for their use - this applies equally to
> > any kind of
> > >>software.
> > >>
> > >>So I would be interested in hearing any suggestions about
> > how we could
> > >>resolve the need for us to have a better understanding of
> > how close we are
> > >>to a final release of any given version, e.g. clearly
> > listing the issues
> > >>that are preventing a release being deemed as 1.1 quality
> > on the website?
> > >>Would it be possible to change the versioning policy so
> > that more non-beta
> > >>dot releases are made possible, since many components are
> > known to have no
> > >>issues? These are just some ideas - they may well not be
> > workable but I
> > >>would like to know what could be done, since it is very
> > frustrating for me
> > >>and others like me to play with great "beta" products and
> > rave about them
> > >>to colleagues, but not be able to make them available for
> > use by their
> > >>applications - this ultimately results in a lack of
> > interest and apathy
> > >>towards such products, which is a great shame given their quality.
> > >>
> > >>Hope something useful can come out of this!
> > >>
> > >>Best regards,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Kosh
> > >>
> > >> >-----Original Message-----
> > >> >From: Chappell, Simon P [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >> >Sent: 15 October 2002 22:58
> > >> >To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > >> >Subject: RE: Struts 1.1 Release
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Were you subscribed to the mailing list earlier today when this
> > >> >was discussed?
> > >> >
> > >> >Struts 1.1 will be released when it's released. Period. No
> > >> >variation from that.
> > >> >
> > >> >That said, even the beta versions of Struts far exceed other
> > >> >software in terms of usefulness and reliability, so don't worry
> > >> >about formal release dates and just start using the thing.
> > >> >
> > >> >Simon
> > >> >
> > >>
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >Simon P. Chappell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> >Java Programming Specialist
> www.landsend.com
> > >> >Lands' End, Inc.
> (608) 935-4526
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>-----Original Message-----
> > >> >>From: Bachan Sadanandan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >> >>Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 4:54 PM
> > >> >>To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > >> >>Subject: Struts 1.1 Release
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Hi all,
> > >> >>Any idea when Struts 1.1 would be ready for Production .???
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thanks !
> > >> >>Bachan
> > >> >>
> > >> >>--
> > >> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> >><mailto:struts-user->[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> >>For
> > >> >>additional commands,
> > >> >>e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >--
> > >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> >For
> > >> >additional commands, e-mail:
> > >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
> > >>
> > >>This message contains confidential information and is
> intended only
> > >>for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
> > >>should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> > >>notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
> > >>e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
> > >>
> > >>E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free
> > >>as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
> > >>arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The
> sender therefore
>
> > >>does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
> > the contents
> > >>of this message which arise as a result of e-mail
> transmission. If
> > >>verification is required please request a hard-copy
> version. This
> > >>message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
> > >>construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any
> > securities or
> > >>related financial instruments.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
> > >http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
