OpenSAML user discussion

[Paul Devine <>]

Thanks Scott, I realize now what's going on. I remember at one point you updated the 1.0 code to resolve a bug and I downloaded a new version. I think I put the 8-4 on there to let myself know it's the version I downloaded on August 4th. Sorry for the confusion. I should have been more clear with myself that it was my notation and not the version number.

 

Paul

Scott Cantor <> wrote:

> I was poking around on the OpenSAML web site today and I
> noticed a new version of the source was posted.

I meant to send an announcement out, but it slipped my mind with other
business, Shibboleth takes precedence.

> a little confused by the version numbering though, the new
> version is labeled opensaml-java-1.0.1.tar.gz. I had
> previously downloaded a version labeled
> opensaml-java-1.0.8-4.tar.gz. Is this new version really
> 1.0.10 or was the previous 1.0.8 some kind of misnumbering?

Umm, that weren't mine. ;-) I've never put out anything with that numbering.
I've released at least 0.8, 0.9, 0.9.1, 1.0, and now 1.0.1, all tarballs,
and in some cases a few updates that I didn't formally name, but I'll stop
doing that.

There's an RPM for the C++ version now that has a revision number after the
1.0.1, but the Java stuff is just a tarball.

> Also, what's the delta between this and previous versions? I
> was looking through the read me and release notes and I
> couldn't find any explanation. I'm trying to figure out if
> it's worth the effort to incorporate this new version or not.

A few bug fixes, mostly handling empty elements. Not much
else, really.

If you're not using 1.0 (plus the security patch I put out), you should
upgrade, otherwise this is non-essential until you're prepared to test it.
However nothing will break using it.

-- Scott

---

Do you Yahoo!?
 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!