[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [wtp-dev] Request PMC approval for hot bug 123911 in 1.0.2

This sounds like a good solution for 1.0.2. +1.

 


From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lawrence Mandel
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:23 PM
To: wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wtp-dev] Request PMC approval for hot bug 123911 in 1.0.2

 


I'd like to request PMC approval to release a fix for hot bug 123911 [1] to the 1.0.2 stream. This bug is the J2EE error message bug we discussed on last week's status call that Arthur vetoed because the fix at the time involved adding J2EE specific error customization in WST. On top of the regular process, for this fix to be accepted I think Arthur will have to recant his veto.

I've created an enhanced fix for this bug. The enhanced fix adds a (currently internal) extension point to the XML validator allowing others to register an error customizer with the validator for a given namespace. The specific error message that is to be fixed for this bug is then customized in the J2EE core plug-in via an error customizer extension. As I mentioned on the call, this extension point should be generally useful to any adopter that would like to customize XML validation related error messages. (I have heard this request before although I can't currently find an open bug for it besides bug 123911.)

To be absolutely clear, to users, the end result of this fix in 1.0.2 is that the error message

cvc-complex-type.2.4.b: The content of element 'application' is not complete. One of '{"http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee":display-name, "http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee":icon, "http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee":module}' is expected.        

will be replaced with

A J2EE Enterprise Application must contain one or more modules.

As both Chuck and Tim commented on last week's status call, this one error message causes a lot of confusion among users and has lead to many invalid bug reports being filed.

I have back ported the fix to 1.0.2 and tested it with unit tests (included in the bug report) and manual tests. >From my tests I believe that the fix, although not trivial, is safe.

[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=123911

Thanks,

Lawrence Mandel

Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
lmandel@xxxxxxxxxx