:)
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> It seems like we wont be able to use the new OGNL byte code
>
> Oh, well.
>
> I think it's been too long since you've received public kudos, Musachy, for
> all the work you've put in of late to support the strut
Musachy Barroso wrote:
It seems like we wont be able to use the new OGNL byte code
Oh, well.
I think it's been too long since you've received public kudos, Musachy,
for all the work you've put in of late to support the struts community:
Musachy++!
-Dale
---
It seems like we wont be able to use the new OGNL byte code, as we
will end up using reflection in most cases anyway. The first problem
is the value stack, given and expression "A.B", it is always evaluated
as "Root.A.B" where Root is the CompundRoot. That would be translated
into root.getA().getB(
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 04:47:22 pm Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Joseph
> > Krogh wrote:
> >> was maybe a little too precise in pointing out 2.1.8, but what I'd like to
> >> see is an updated OGNL *be
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Joseph
> Krogh wrote:
>> was maybe a little too precise in pointing out 2.1.8, but what I'd like to
>> see is an updated OGNL *before* 2.2 is released, in 2.1.9+ or so.
>> Releasing 2.1.8 as soon as
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Joseph
Krogh wrote:
> was maybe a little too precise in pointing out 2.1.8, but what I'd like to
> see is an updated OGNL *before* 2.2 is released, in 2.1.9+ or so.
> Releasing 2.1.8 as soon as xwork-2.1.5 is out seems very reasonable.
>
Yeah, this I could
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:09:08 pm Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Andreas Joseph
> Krogh wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:14:00 am Musachy Barroso wrote:
> >> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
> >> wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 wit
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Andreas Joseph
Krogh wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:14:00 am Musachy Barroso wrote:
>> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
>> wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.
>
> FWIW; Any performance-impro
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:14:00 am Musachy Barroso wrote:
> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
> wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.
FWIW; Any performance-improvements to OGNL are welcome, so I'm all for
including 2.7.x in 2.1.
2.7 parsing works fine as a drop in replacement, but the bytecode
compilation does not work out of the box. After enabling it I got a
lot of tests failing.
musachy
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
> wou
2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.
musachy
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> I did some more checking and it looks good. I would say after 2.
Musachy Barroso wrote:
I did some more checking and it looks good. I would say after 2.1.8
gets released, we create the 2.1 branch and start working on 2.2,
which would use OGNL 2.7, how does that sound?
I'm gonna start using 2.7(.3) now. I think I had reverted from 2.7 to
2.6 as a result of
I did some more checking and it looks good. I would say after 2.1.8
gets released, we create the 2.1 branch and start working on 2.2,
which would use OGNL 2.7, how does that sound?
musachy
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> neat. the sync changes are also in 2.7, a little b
neat. the sync changes are also in 2.7, a little bit different but it
is the same I think.
musachy
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> OGNL 2.7 can compile expressions into java code which gives a very
>> nice performance boost, so I am big +1 for
Musachy Barroso wrote:
OGNL 2.7 can compile expressions into java code which gives a very
nice performance boost, so I am big +1 for upgrading. I am trying to
figure if the changes in 2.6 mate it into 2.7 or not.
alias svndiff='svn diff --diff-cmd /usr/bin/diff --extensions "-u -b -B -w"'
svnd
the struts tests run fine. The 3 tests failing in xwork are related to
setter/getters to having the same type, so given a class:
class IAmHungryWhatTimeIsIt {
private int number;
public int getNumber() {}
public void setNumber(String number) {}
}
so in OGNL 2.6.x if we try to set
hehe..I will be testing with that version, so far 3 tests break on
xwork, they don't seem like a big deal and I like the new behavior
better (I will give more details later). I still need to run the
struts tests.
musachy
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dave Newton wrote:
> Musachy Barroso wrote:
Musachy Barroso wrote:
it is here: http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/ognl/ognl/2.7.2/
why aren't we using that version?
'Cuz nobody could find it ;)
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.or
it is here: http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/ognl/ognl/2.7.2/
why aren't we using that version?
musahcy
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> We are using OGNL 2.6.11 from opensymphony. I have seen OGNL 2.7
> mentioned in some places, like:
> http://blog.opencomp
19 matches
Mail list logo
