2013/9/11 <ma...@apache.org>: > Author: markt > Date: Wed Sep 11 11:59:37 2013 > New Revision: 1521817 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1521817 > Log: > Comment > > Modified: > tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt > > Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt?rev=1521817&r1=1521816&r2=1521817&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt (original) > +++ tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt Wed Sep 11 11:59:37 2013 > @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT: > I think @Target change for @DenyAll is wrong. > Looking at Geronimo, @DenyAll has "@Target({ElementType.METHOD})" in CA > 1.0 there. > It is "@Target({ElementType.TYPE, ElementType.METHOD})" starting with > CA 1.1. > + markt: > + The CA 1.0 spec section 2.11 is explicit that DenyAll is permitted on > + classes. Geronimo and whatever source was used generate the official > Java > + EE 5 Javadoc are wrong.
Ah, I see it. Nevertheless, it looks to me that it is not just a typo, but a genuine error, that was corrected in CA 1.1. It is mentioned in changelog, http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/maintenance/jsr250/250ChangeLog.html -> "Maintenance Review 1," -> "2. Change the definition of the @DenyAll annotation" Unless there is some evidence in mailing lists elsewhere, I think the question is which version of the class would pass a TCK. I think that Geronimo classes might have been tested better, than ones in Tomcat. Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
