On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:05 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that the tests need to be fixed for 0.9, however I
> think they need to be fixed for any subsequent release. I'm happy to
> provide patches and/or update trunk to achieve this.
>
Always great to have help :-) Oh
On 27/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2008, at 8:25 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On 26/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:20 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 25/11/2008, Rahul A
On Nov 27, 2008, at 8:25 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 26/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:20 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 25/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, if and only if:
a) the usage needs serializa
On 26/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:20 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 25/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
> >> So, if and only if:
> >> a) the usage needs serializability (not all library uses do), and
>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:20 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, if and only if:
>> a) the usage needs serializability (not all library uses do), and
>> b) a DOM impl that isn't serializable is in use (such as Crimson)
It tur
On 25/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:35 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Surely Maven will use either whatever the JDK provides or whatever the
> > POM specifies?
> >
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > I did some more tests, and if I add xerce
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:25 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've just discovered the cause of the NPE - there is an IO error that
> is being ignored:
>
> "(The requested operation cannot be performed on a file with a
> user-mapped section open)"
>
> It looks as though it might perhaps be
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:35 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Surely Maven will use either whatever the JDK provides or whatever the
> POM specifies?
>
Yes.
> I did some more tests, and if I add xercesImpl and xml-apis to the
> dependencies, then Java 1.4.2 no longer reports any serialis
On 25/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I've just seen the error again.
> > > I updated the fail() message to fail(e+e.getMessage()) so
On 24/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I've just seen the error again.
> > I updated the fail() message to fail(e+e.getMessage()) so I got a bit
> > more information:
> >
> >
> --
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've just seen the error again.
> I updated the fail() message to fail(e+e.getMessage()) so I got a bit
> more information:
>
> ---
> Test set: org.apach
On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:46 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
> >> I've been nudged before, but I'm OK with it being there.
> >>
> >
> > OK by me too, so long a
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Thanks Phil, comments below.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks good. Checked only m2 build, using jdk 1.5.0_16. Jar contents, etc
look fine. If you do end up cutting another RC, it would be nice to include
miniumum require
Thanks Phil, comments below.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Looks good. Checked only m2 build, using jdk 1.5.0_16. Jar contents, etc
> look fine. If you do end up cutting another RC, it would be nice to include
> miniumum required JDK level somewhe
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Distributions, key, release notes:
http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.9/RC1/
Site including clirr and rat reports (many links -- such as release
docs, some Javadoc links and images will remain broken on staging
site):
http://people.apache.org/builds/common
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:13 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for going over the Findbugs list. While this is a bit of a déjà
>> vu for me ...
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/si5kphud52ntxbqi
>>
>> ... I don't expe
On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:19 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just thought to run Findbugs on the code.
> >
>
>
>
> Thanks for going over the Findbugs list. While this is a bit of a déjà
> vu for me ...
>
> http://markmail.or
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:19 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just thought to run Findbugs on the code.
>
Thanks for going over the Findbugs list. While this is a bit of a déjà
vu for me ...
http://markmail.org/message/si5kphud52ntxbqi
... I don't expect others to remember the discussi
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:46 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I've been nudged before, but I'm OK with it being there.
>>
>
> OK by me too, so long as they are up to date, so I just ran a "maven
> test" and it completed successful
Just thought to run Findbugs on the code.
There are a lot of cases of the statement:
private Log appLog = LogFactory.getLog(...)
which appear in serializable classes.
However Log does not appear to be Serializable, so this will cause a
problem if the classes are serialised. So long as the Log f
On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for your time (some comments below).
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:51 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > All looks OK:
> > + hashes, sigs OK
> > + tar and zip archives have same contents
> > + source agrees with SV
Thanks for your time (some comments below).
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:51 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All looks OK:
> + hashes, sigs OK
> + tar and zip archives have same contents
> + source agrees with SVN tag
> + mvn test works OK on 1.4.2 and 1.6.0
> + Ant jar works on 1.6.0 and 1.4
On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:14 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Distributions, key, release notes:
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.9/RC1/
> >>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:14 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Distributions, key, release notes:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.9/RC1/
>>
>> Site including clirr and rat reports (many links -- such as release
On 22/11/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Distributions, key, release notes:
>
> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.9/RC1/
>
> Site including clirr and rat reports (many links -- such as release
> docs, some Javadoc links and images will remain broken on staging
>
Distributions, key, release notes:
http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.9/RC1/
Site including clirr and rat reports (many links -- such as release
docs, some Javadoc links and images will remain broken on staging
site):
http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.9/RC1/site/
26 matches
Mail list logo
