[jboss-dev] Ongoing VFS testing on Branch_5_0

[Anil Saldhana]

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?
>>