Thomas's fixes may need to be rolled back for 5.0.1 (Branch_5_0) and
reapplied once we validate it in 5.1 branch and the trunk. Branch_5_0
is bug fixes.
Thomas apart from bug fixes added in-memory web app deployment stuff to
branch_5_0 afaik.
Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
Thomas' commits for JBAS-6436 looked a bit scary and there is
probably
not good justification for this type of changes on Branch_5_0 while we
are trying to fix VFS and release 5.0.1. Communicating with Remy would
also be a good idea, although the whole thing was on the forums:
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4205438
However, after the initial checking and some corrective fixes the
testsuite passed. I don't know about TCK though because we didn't run
it immediately after that.
The problems started after testing with the latest VFS snapshots.
I don't know, maybe we should apply Ales' proposed fix and see how it
goes before rolling back anything.
Ales Justin wrote:
>> Thomas,
>>
>> I am looking at revision 83709 and 83774, which likely are causing the
>> VFS problems that are reported by Ales.
>
> Actually it's not Thomas's code.
> It's this hack-ish line:
>
> if (warName.endsWith("/") == false || warName.endsWith("!/") ==
true)
> // Hack for jar urls being exposed
>
> Since current URL is neither.
> - it ends with '/'
> - it has no jar ending (in vfs we don't need that)
>
>> In addition to being very risky
>> and done without even contacting me to talk about them, the actual code
>> changes are obsfucated inside a ton of formatting changes (because you
>> do not seem to like my formatting. Please never do that, at least put
>> the formatting changes inside a commit, done prior to the actual code
>> changes.
>
> We don't have an exact formating rules?
>
>> My opinion right now is that these two revisions should be reverted,
>> 5.0.1 is not the right place for this sort of risky refactoring (should
>> be planned for 5.1, carefully).
>
> Afaik Thomas did this with care - line by line.
> So I don't agree with you about the revert.
> This should've been done long ago.
>
> OK, whatever you decide wrt revert or not,
> I need that line fixed.
>
> Will you do it or should I?
>