I am out of the office until 07/06/2009.
If it can't wait, see Dan Berg.
Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: confused about
OGNL" sent on 6/29/09 20:58:46.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
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.
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 03:09:08 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 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 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 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
Am I missing something obvious or this has been broken in ParametsInterceptor?
protected boolean isAccepted(String paramName) {
if (!this.acceptParams.isEmpty()) {
for (Pattern pattern : acceptParams) {
Matcher matcher = pattern.matcher(paramName);
