I think we can do some tests once Maven works with Jelly again to verify that this is WAD. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/05/2004 06:05:51 AM: > though it is just a hypothesis, the hypothesis does comes from a > beanutils committer who knows the code involved pretty well. i know > that there are significant changes in the ways that the two methods > work but whether any current users are likely to be bitten by this > behaviour, i don't know. > > but i'd say that should be up to the folks who've know the jelly users > best to decide whether this is a worry for them or not. > > so i'm voting 0 > > - robert > > On 18 May 2004, at 08:48, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > > > +1 as well if even mavenners say it's not a problem. > > This is where I was fearing! > > > > paul > > > > On 18-May-04, at 01:42 Uhr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> Geoff, I'm all in favour of your proposal and now call for a vote on > >> it: > >> > >> Accept Geoff's patch: > >> > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > >> msg06871.html > >> > >> [ ] +1 (Agree and will help) > >> [ ] +0 (Agree) > >> [ ] -1 (Don't agree and here's why) > >> > >> Here's my +1. > >> -- > >> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > >> > >> > >> > >> Geoffrey Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 18/05/2004 > >> 01:40:46 > >> AM: > >> > >>> A couple of weeks ago I posted a message concerning the implications > >>> of > >>> the BeanUtils.setProperty() method: > >>> > >>> > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > >> msg06999.html > >>> > >>> I subsequently submitted a patch which resolves the issue, including > >>> a > >>> custom Converter implementation which aims to maintain backwards > >>> compatibility with the current behavior: > >>> > >>> > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > >> msg06871.html > >>> > >>> There were concerns that switching from BeanUtils.setProperty() to > >>> BeanUtils.copyProperty() might cause unforeseen problems with > >>> existing > >>> scripts due to differences in logic between those methods, but > >>> without > >>> an example script this remains only a hypothesis. > >>> > >>> The discussion has since ceased, with no clear resolution. I would > >>> like > >> > >>> to restart the thread in the hopes of gaining some closure to the > >>> issue. > >>> > >>> Many thanks. > >>> Geoff. > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
