[Geoserver-devel] upgrading to wicket 1.4

Hi all,

Recently i have come across a few extensions for wicket that I figure would be nice but require wicket 1.4. That and since 1.4 seems to be the current stable release I thought I would take a crack at an upgrade. Not the easiest upgrade by a long shot but I have a working setup in my github repo [1].

Before describing what I did I am curious to hear what people think about an upgrade? Is now the right time? Or should we push off to 2.2? Personally i guess i am +0 on the upgrade. On the one hand there are no crucial issues that will be fixed by the upgrade, if anything we will still have issues as i am sure there are cases where keys are being referenced that do not exist in the property file. we just don’t have the test coverage to catch it. Before this patch goes through every single page will have to visited manually… that or we up test coverage to 100% :slight_smile: But on the other hand 95% of the work is done and if we don’t upgrade now the patch will become outdated, etc…

Anyways, the patch is sizeable so here is the gist of what I did:

  1. compile errors

There were a wack of compile errors as described here [2]. But the changes were pretty mechanical, mostly changing getModel() and getModelObject() to getDefaultModel() and getDefaultModelObject() respectively

  1. gzip compression issues

The gzip compression filter had to be updated to deal with the way that wicket sets the content-length header. Or else two content-length headers get encoded and this throws off most web browsers, only firefox was able to cope

  1. resource lookups

This was most of the work. It seems that wicket is now not so lenient when using wicket:message elements on a page when the key does not actually exist. And we had a number of pages that were referencing keys that do not exist

  1. customized resource settings

To obtain the single .properties stuff we have to customize the default wicket application resource settings. And have a custom resource loader. This api has changed slightly (well not the api but the wicket internal implementation) so we had to update the custom geoserver resource loader.

  1. wicket tester

it seems with 1.4 the wicket tester stuff is a bit more strict to referencing components that do not exist. I had to change some of the paths used in test cases for components and when calling submit specifying an invalid id for the submit button

  1. LayerGroupEditPageTest

This one i was actually not sure about. It seems the test makes some assumptions about how the layer list is structured and perhaps it changed.

— a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
+++ b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
@@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ public class LayerGroupEditPageTest extends LayerGroupBaseTest {
tester.assertRenderedPage(LayerGroupEditPage.class);
// remove the first and second elements
tester.clickLink(“form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:1:itemProperties:4:component:link”);
// the regenerated list will have ids starting from 4

  • tester.clickLink(“form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link”);
  • //tester.clickLink(“form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link”);
    // manually regenerate bounds
    tester.clickLink(“form:generateBounds”);
    // print(page, true, true);

Hopefully the author can chime in.

  1. CoverageStoreEditPageTest,DataAccessEditPageTest

These pages have custom validator on the form that check the data store name to ensure that it (a) gets set and (b) does not already exist in the catalog. There is also the validator that gets implicitly set since the “name” field is required. It seems the order in which they execute is now different and the latter executes first. For example:

— a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
+++ b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
@@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ public class CoverageStoreEditPageTest extends GeoServerWicketTestSupport {
tester.clickLink(“rasterStoreForm:save”);

tester.assertRenderedPage(CoverageStoreEditPage.class);

  • tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { “Store name is required” });
  • tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { “Field ‘Data Source Name’ is required.” });
    }
  1. WebUtils.localize

In this method there was a workaround for a wicket bug reported by Andrea.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1719

I removed the workaround because (a) it should be fixed and (b) StringResourceModel.setLocalizer() has been made final.

That’s it :slight_smile:

-Justin

[1] http://github.com/jdeolive/geoserver/commit/775dd700c10e7c98a31b8956468f35d1b80f6c3f
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/migrating-to-wicket-14.html#MigratingtoWicket1.4-Modelchanges


Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.

Generally, stricter is better in terms of maintenance - there is a
good reason they found it worthwhile to improve strictness in some
place.

+0 on that basis and not wasting the work.

Rob

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Justin Deoliveira
<jdeolive@anonymised.com> wrote:

Hi all,
Recently i have come across a few extensions for wicket that I figure would
be nice but require wicket 1.4. That and since 1.4 seems to be the current
stable release I thought I would take a crack at an upgrade. Not the easiest
upgrade by a long shot but I have a working setup in my github repo [1].
Before describing what I did I am curious to hear what people think about an
upgrade? Is now the right time? Or should we push off to 2.2? Personally i
guess i am +0 on the upgrade. On the one hand there are no crucial issues
that will be fixed by the upgrade, if anything we will still have issues as
i am sure there are cases where keys are being referenced that do not exist
in the property file. we just don't have the test coverage to catch it.
Before this patch goes through every single page will have to visited
manually... that or we up test coverage to 100% :slight_smile: But on the other hand 95%
of the work is done and if we don't upgrade now the patch will become
outdated, etc...
Anyways, the patch is sizeable so here is the gist of what I did:
1) compile errors
There were a wack of compile errors as described here [2]. But the changes
were pretty mechanical, mostly changing getModel() and getModelObject() to
getDefaultModel() and getDefaultModelObject() respectively
2) gzip compression issues
The gzip compression filter had to be updated to deal with the way that
wicket sets the content-length header. Or else two content-length headers
get encoded and this throws off most web browsers, only firefox was able to
cope
3) resource lookups
This was most of the work. It seems that wicket is now not so lenient when
using <wicket:message> elements on a page when the key does not actually
exist. And we had a number of pages that were referencing keys that do not
exist
4) customized resource settings
To obtain the single .properties stuff we have to customize the default
wicket application resource settings. And have a custom resource loader.
This api has changed slightly (well not the api but the wicket
internal implementation) so we had to update the custom geoserver resource
loader.
5) wicket tester
it seems with 1.4 the wicket tester stuff is a bit more strict to
referencing components that do not exist. I had to change some of the paths
used in test cases for components and when calling submit specifying an
invalid id for the submit button
6) LayerGroupEditPageTest
This one i was actually not sure about. It seems the test makes
some assumptions about how the layer list is structured and perhaps it
changed.
---
a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
@@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ public class LayerGroupEditPageTest extends
LayerGroupBaseTest {
tester.assertRenderedPage(LayerGroupEditPage.class);
// remove the first and second elements

tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:1:itemProperties:4:component:link");
// the regenerated list will have ids starting from 4
-
tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link");
+
//tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link");
// manually regenerate bounds
tester.clickLink("form:generateBounds");
// print(page, true, true);

Hopefully the author can chime in.
7) CoverageStoreEditPageTest,DataAccessEditPageTest
These pages have custom validator on the form that check the data store name
to ensure that it (a) gets set and (b) does not already exist in the
catalog. There is also the validator that gets implicitly set since the
"name" field is required. It seems the order in which they execute is now
different and the latter executes first. For example:
---
a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
@@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ public class CoverageStoreEditPageTest extends
GeoServerWicketTestSupport {
tester.clickLink("rasterStoreForm:save");

     tester\.assertRenderedPage\(CoverageStoreEditPage\.class\);

- tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { "Store name is required"
});
+ tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { "Field 'Data Source Name'
is required." });
}
8) WebUtils.localize
In this method there was a workaround for a wicket bug reported by Andrea.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1719
I removed the workaround because (a) it should be fixed and (b)
StringResourceModel.setLocalizer() has been made final.
That's it :slight_smile:
-Justin
[1] http://github.com/jdeolive/geoserver/commit/775dd700c10e7c98a31b8956468f35d1b80f6c3f
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/migrating-to-wicket-14.html#MigratingtoWicket1.4-Modelchanges

--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Justin Deoliveira <jdeolive@anonymised.com> wrote:

Hi all,
Recently i have come across a few extensions for wicket that I figure would
be nice but require wicket 1.4. That and since 1.4 seems to be the current
stable release I thought I would take a crack at an upgrade. Not the easiest
upgrade by a long shot but I have a working setup in my github repo [1].
Before describing what I did I am curious to hear what people think about an
upgrade? Is now the right time? Or should we push off to 2.2? Personally i
guess i am +0 on the upgrade. On the one hand there are no crucial issues
that will be fixed by the upgrade, if anything we will still have issues as
i am sure there are cases where keys are being referenced that do not exist
in the property file. we just don't have the test coverage to catch it.
Before this patch goes through every single page will have to visited
manually... that or we up test coverage to 100% :slight_smile: But on the other hand 95%
of the work is done and if we don't upgrade now the patch will become
outdated, etc...

I'm favourable to have the patchset hit GeoServer now. GeoServer 2.2 is far
far away and Wicket 1.4 would be replaced by 1.5 by then.
I prefer to see a "one step at a time" approach and switch to Wicket 1.4 before
GeoServer beta2 is relased.

6) LayerGroupEditPageTest
This one i was actually not sure about. It seems the test makes
some assumptions about how the layer list is structured and perhaps it
changed.
---
a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
@@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ public class LayerGroupEditPageTest extends
LayerGroupBaseTest {
tester.assertRenderedPage(LayerGroupEditPage.class);
// remove the first and second elements

tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:1:itemProperties:4:component:link");
// the regenerated list will have ids starting from 4
-
tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link");
+
//tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link");
// manually regenerate bounds
tester.clickLink("form:generateBounds");
// print(page, true, true);

Hopefully the author can chime in.

Yeah, to click a link in a list container we need to go through the
full path, I know of no
other way to make it work. What you can do is to use the debug
facilities in our testing
harness to have the structure of the page be printed and see how the
new link path
looks like. See print(Compoenent, boolean, boolean)

7) CoverageStoreEditPageTest,DataAccessEditPageTest
These pages have custom validator on the form that check the data store name
to ensure that it (a) gets set and (b) does not already exist in the
catalog. There is also the validator that gets implicitly set since the
"name" field is required. It seems the order in which they execute is now
different and the latter executes first. For example:
---
a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
@@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ public class CoverageStoreEditPageTest extends
GeoServerWicketTestSupport {
tester.clickLink("rasterStoreForm:save");

     tester\.assertRenderedPage\(CoverageStoreEditPage\.class\);

- tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { "Store name is required"
});
+ tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { "Field 'Data Source Name'
is required." });
}

Ah, I see. Patch looks good.

Btw, also had a quick look at the full patch on github, looks good too.

Cheers
Andrea

-----------------------------------------------------
Ing. Andrea Aime
Senior Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf

-----------------------------------------------------

Cool, so far we have 2 +0’s and 1 +1. So seems there is some interest.

So pushing forward I guess we should:

(a) flush out the rest of the key errors by manually visiting all pages (adding test cases along the way)
(b) write up an official proposal for the purpose of voting

Sound good?

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Andrea Aime <andrea.aime@anonymised.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Justin Deoliveira <jdeolive@anonymised.com> wrote:

Hi all,
Recently i have come across a few extensions for wicket that I figure would
be nice but require wicket 1.4. That and since 1.4 seems to be the current
stable release I thought I would take a crack at an upgrade. Not the easiest
upgrade by a long shot but I have a working setup in my github repo [1].
Before describing what I did I am curious to hear what people think about an
upgrade? Is now the right time? Or should we push off to 2.2? Personally i
guess i am +0 on the upgrade. On the one hand there are no crucial issues
that will be fixed by the upgrade, if anything we will still have issues as
i am sure there are cases where keys are being referenced that do not exist
in the property file. we just don’t have the test coverage to catch it.
Before this patch goes through every single page will have to visited
manually… that or we up test coverage to 100% :slight_smile: But on the other hand 95%
of the work is done and if we don’t upgrade now the patch will become
outdated, etc…

I’m favourable to have the patchset hit GeoServer now. GeoServer 2.2 is far
far away and Wicket 1.4 would be replaced by 1.5 by then.
I prefer to see a “one step at a time” approach and switch to Wicket 1.4 before
GeoServer beta2 is relased.

  1. LayerGroupEditPageTest
    This one i was actually not sure about. It seems the test makes
    some assumptions about how the layer list is structured and perhaps it
    changed.

a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
@@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ public class LayerGroupEditPageTest extends
LayerGroupBaseTest {
tester.assertRenderedPage(LayerGroupEditPage.class);
// remove the first and second elements

tester.clickLink(“form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:1:itemProperties:4:component:link”);
// the regenerated list will have ids starting from 4

tester.clickLink(“form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link”);
+
//tester.clickLink(“form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link”);
// manually regenerate bounds
tester.clickLink(“form:generateBounds”);
// print(page, true, true);

Hopefully the author can chime in.

Yeah, to click a link in a list container we need to go through the
full path, I know of no
other way to make it work. What you can do is to use the debug
facilities in our testing
harness to have the structure of the page be printed and see how the
new link path
looks like. See print(Compoenent, boolean, boolean)

  1. CoverageStoreEditPageTest,DataAccessEditPageTest
    These pages have custom validator on the form that check the data store name
    to ensure that it (a) gets set and (b) does not already exist in the
    catalog. There is also the validator that gets implicitly set since the
    “name” field is required. It seems the order in which they execute is now
    different and the latter executes first. For example:

a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
@@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ public class CoverageStoreEditPageTest extends
GeoServerWicketTestSupport {
tester.clickLink(“rasterStoreForm:save”);

tester.assertRenderedPage(CoverageStoreEditPage.class);

  • tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { “Store name is required”
    });
  • tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { “Field ‘Data Source Name’
    is required.” });
    }

Ah, I see. Patch looks good.

Btw, also had a quick look at the full patch on github, looks good too.

Cheers
Andrea


Ing. Andrea Aime
Senior Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf



Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.

Sounds good to me. Count me as +1.

On 13/10/10 03:28, Justin Deoliveira wrote:

Cool, so far we have 2 +0's and 1 +1. So seems there is some interest.

So pushing forward I guess we should:

(a) flush out the rest of the key errors by manually visiting all pages (adding test cases along the way)
(b) write up an official proposal for the purpose of voting

Sound good?

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Andrea Aime<andrea.aime@anonymised.com<mailto:andrea.aime@anonymised.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Justin Deoliveira<jdeolive@anonymised.com<mailto:jdeolive@anonymised.com>> wrote:

Hi all,
Recently i have come across a few extensions for wicket that I figure would
be nice but require wicket 1.4. That and since 1.4 seems to be the current
stable release I thought I would take a crack at an upgrade. Not the easiest
upgrade by a long shot but I have a working setup in my github repo [1].
Before describing what I did I am curious to hear what people think about an
upgrade? Is now the right time? Or should we push off to 2.2? Personally i
guess i am +0 on the upgrade. On the one hand there are no crucial issues
that will be fixed by the upgrade, if anything we will still have issues as
i am sure there are cases where keys are being referenced that do not exist
in the property file. we just don't have the test coverage to catch it.
Before this patch goes through every single page will have to visited
manually... that or we up test coverage to 100% :slight_smile: But on the other hand 95%
of the work is done and if we don't upgrade now the patch will become
outdated, etc...

I'm favourable to have the patchset hit GeoServer now. GeoServer 2.2 is far
far away and Wicket 1.4 would be replaced by 1.5 by then.
I prefer to see a "one step at a time" approach and switch to Wicket 1.4 before
GeoServer beta2 is relased.

6) LayerGroupEditPageTest
This one i was actually not sure about. It seems the test makes
some assumptions about how the layer list is structured and perhaps it
changed.
---
a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/layergroup/LayerGroupEditPageTest.java
@@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ public class LayerGroupEditPageTest extends
LayerGroupBaseTest {
          tester.assertRenderedPage(LayerGroupEditPage.class);
          // remove the first and second elements

tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:1:itemProperties:4:component:link");
          // the regenerated list will have ids starting from 4
-
  tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link");
+
  //tester.clickLink("form:layers:layers:listContainer:items:4:itemProperties:4:component:link");
          // manually regenerate bounds
          tester.clickLink("form:generateBounds");
          // print(page, true, true);

Hopefully the author can chime in.

Yeah, to click a link in a list container we need to go through the
full path, I know of no
other way to make it work. What you can do is to use the debug
facilities in our testing
harness to have the structure of the page be printed and see how the
new link path
looks like. See print(Compoenent, boolean, boolean)

7) CoverageStoreEditPageTest,DataAccessEditPageTest
These pages have custom validator on the form that check the data store name
to ensure that it (a) gets set and (b) does not already exist in the
catalog. There is also the validator that gets implicitly set since the
"name" field is required. It seems the order in which they execute is now
different and the latter executes first. For example:
---
a/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
+++
b/web/core/src/test/java/org/geoserver/web/data/store/CoverageStoreEditPageTest.java
@@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ public class CoverageStoreEditPageTest extends
GeoServerWicketTestSupport {
          tester.clickLink("rasterStoreForm:save");

          tester.assertRenderedPage(CoverageStoreEditPage.class);
- tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { "Store name is required"
});
+ tester.assertErrorMessages(new String { "Field 'Data Source Name'
is required." });
      }

Ah, I see. Patch looks good.

Btw, also had a quick look at the full patch on github, looks good too.

Cheers
Andrea

-----------------------------------------------------
Ing. Andrea Aime
Senior Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf

-----------------------------------------------------

--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineering Team Leader
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre

So pushing forward I guess we should:
(a) flush out the rest of the key errors by manually visiting all pages
(adding test cases along the way)
(b) write up an official proposal for the purpose of voting
Sound good?

Sounds good

Cheers
Andrea

-----------------------------------------------------
Ing. Andrea Aime
Senior Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf

-----------------------------------------------------

Sounds good, have my community +1

now that we're into it, we should consider asking Christian to hurry on
his proposal to upgrade to Spring 3.0, as not to lose the train.

See the 'GeoServer security improvement proposal' thread for his
motivations.

2c./
Gabriel

On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 09:17 +0200, Andrea Aime wrote:

> So pushing forward I guess we should:
> (a) flush out the rest of the key errors by manually visiting all pages
> (adding test cases along the way)
> (b) write up an official proposal for the purpose of voting
> Sound good?

Sounds good

Cheers
Andrea

-----------------------------------------------------
Ing. Andrea Aime
Senior Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf

-----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

--
Gabriel Roldan
groldan@anonymised.com
Expert service straight from the developers

Hi all, I did a first draft
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+53+Geoserver+security+improvement

I am not sure if the list of voters is correct, I copied the list from GSIP 48.

Since I could fill a masther thesis with this topic (what I am actually doing), please tell me some points you want have to be described in more detail.

Cheers
Christian

Quoting Gabriel Roldán <groldan@anonymised.com>:

Sounds good, have my community +1

now that we're into it, we should consider asking Christian to hurry on
his proposal to upgrade to Spring 3.0, as not to lose the train.

See the 'GeoServer security improvement proposal' thread for his
motivations.

2c./
Gabriel

On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 09:17 +0200, Andrea Aime wrote:

> So pushing forward I guess we should:
> (a) flush out the rest of the key errors by manually visiting all pages
> (adding test cases along the way)
> (b) write up an official proposal for the purpose of voting
> Sound good?

Sounds good

Cheers
Andrea

-----------------------------------------------------
Ing. Andrea Aime
Senior Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf

-----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

--
Gabriel Roldan
groldan@anonymised.com
Expert service straight from the developers

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Christian, I think it'll be easier to vote if you separate Spring 3.0 upgrade in to a separate GSIP. Can just make a new one on just that (and spring security? Would be great if we could get that in for 2.1.0), and keep 53 for the additional security improvements.

On 10/16/10 3:36 PM, christian.mueller@anonymised.com wrote:

Hi all, I did a first draft
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+53+Geoserver+security+improvement

I am not sure if the list of voters is correct, I copied the list from
GSIP 48.

Since I could fill a masther thesis with this topic (what I am
actually doing), please tell me some points you want have to be
described in more detail.

Cheers
Christian

Quoting Gabriel Roldán<groldan@anonymised.com>:

Sounds good, have my community +1

now that we're into it, we should consider asking Christian to hurry on
his proposal to upgrade to Spring 3.0, as not to lose the train.

See the 'GeoServer security improvement proposal' thread for his
motivations.

2c./
Gabriel

On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 09:17 +0200, Andrea Aime wrote:

So pushing forward I guess we should:
(a) flush out the rest of the key errors by manually visiting all pages
(adding test cases along the way)
(b) write up an official proposal for the purpose of voting
Sound good?

Sounds good

Cheers
Andrea

-----------------------------------------------------
Ing. Andrea Aime
Senior Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf

-----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2& L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

--
Gabriel Roldan
groldan@anonymised.com
Expert service straight from the developers

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download new Adobe(R) Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4
The new Adobe(R) Flex(R) 4 and Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4 (formerly
Flex(R) Builder(TM)) enable the development of rich applications that run
across multiple browsers and platforms. Download your free trials today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel