On 11/25/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/26/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In preparation for the initial milestone release of Struts Shale 1.0.0, > a > > release candidate has been made available at: > > > > http://people.apache.org/~craigmcc/struts-shale-1.0.0-rc1/ > > (TIME LIMITED URL) > > > > including both tar.gz and zip artifacts (containing both binary and > source), > > and an extracted copy of the release notes. Please help ensure the > correct > > assembly and quality of this release by downloading it, and ensuring > that it > > works correctly for you. > > Sorry to be picky, I have a few minor points...
Thanks for taking a look ... been enjoying a good soccer game (womens quarterfinals: University of Portland 3, Notre Dame 1 :-) so this response is a few hours late. 1) Manifest Files > None of the maifest files incude "package", "Specification Title" or > "Extension Name" - I'm wondering if it would be more "tool friendly" > to include these - not that I know much about tools :-) It would definitely be more tool friendly to do that ... but I thought it was done already. I definitely see all of the following manifest headers in all the JAR files in the "dist" directory: * Extension-Name * Specification-Vendor * Specification-Version * Implementation-Vendor * Implementation-Version Is there some specific JAR file I'm missing? 2) JDK 1.5 > All the manifest files indicate that they've been built with JDK 1.5. > Isn't the minimum JDK for shale 1.4? I'm guessing you've probably > built with a JDK 1.4 compatability option - even if that is the case, > it would make me happier as a JDK 1.4 user if I saw JDK 1.4 in there. JDK 1.4 is indeed the minimum platform. The build scripts include source=" 1.4" and target="1.4" settings, and I've tested against 1.4 runtimes for both the unit tests and the system integration tests (per the test matrix). I can indeed build with a 1.4 JDK if that really makes people feel better, but this doesn't strike me as something absolutely necessary. 3) The shale-core.jar includes a number of re-named java source files > and a SVN file (o/a/s/svn-commit.tmp) which IMO it would be better if > the build excluded: > CommonsValidator.java.orig > CommonsValidator.java.rej > DefaultControllerMaper.java.orig > DefaultControllerMaper.java.rej > ShaleViewHandler.java.orig > ConfigurationParser.java.bu Good catch ... will fix these leftovers from failed "patch" sessions and a manual "keep the backup file" issue. 4) Missing License/Notice > The shale-spring.jar and shale-tiles.jar don't inclide Notice or License > files. Will fix that too. 5) Notice Files > All the Notice Files (I think theres four included) refer to the JSF > RI being re-distributed and made reference to the LICENSE-JSF.txt file > - but I couldn't find a copy of that file in the distro. From what I > could find the RI is only in the example webapp - would it be better > to just have a notice wrt to the the RI in the webapps directory > and/or war file? Originally, I was including the JSF RI, but now that MyFaces has passed the TCK I switched to that as the default. Happily, the release is now 100% Apache licensed code (since Spring uses that license as well), so I need to clean up the references to the RI. Some Notice files include references to code written by David Geary > and Clay Horstman for "Core JavaServer Faces" and I'm wondering who > owns the copyright on that code (them, Sun, the publisher) and whether > Apache is covered wrt IP on this? They voluntarily contributed this code to Shale ... I'll look up the mail thread and then get them to do the formal code submission as well. 6) Release Notes > IMO it would be better to have the release notes in the root directory I thought about that one too ... unfortunately, in order for the distribution artifact to be buildable with the default build.xml file, that would mean we would need to do the same thing in the source repository, which didn't seem as appealing. All I did was a quick look over - if I get the time, I'll try and give > it a whirl. > > Niall > > P.S. Congratulations, by the way, hopefully the day of a Shale "GA" > release isn't too far away. Thanks! Craig
