Spring bump to 4.1.1

[Ian Young]

On 7 Oct 2014, at 00:41, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:

> It appears that the conflict I was seeing with Spring and Web Flow is
> because we weren't overriding the spring-expression version, rather than
> an actual requirement to run SWF on the older version.

That's good news. Getting to product with a a version of Spring that was already EOL would have been annoying.

> I don't really understand how to sanely manage transitive requirements if
> you can (and aparently are supposed to) just ignore the declared
> dependencies of other software, but I'll chalk it up to me being paranoid.

I'm not sure what went wrong in this case, as even though we didn't explicitly manage the version of spring-expression I would have expected one of the other Spring modules to have referred to the newer version, even if SWF didn't. Things like that get resolved in favour of the highest version, I believe.

That *seemed* to be what happened for me if I changed the Spring version without adding the management clause for spring-expression. Looking in the dependency hierarchy in the Eclipse Maven editor for the idp-distribution module, I saw that the version of spring-expression it was pulling in was 4.1.1.

It could be a variation between what the Maven in Eclipse does and what the real one does, I suppose. Life is, alas, full of mysteries of this kind.

	-- Ian



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5943 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20141007/173e164d/attachment.bin