Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
@lukaszlenart , this could be postponed to resolution of
[WW-4751](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-4751).
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have you
Github user lukaszlenart commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
Sure, feel free to implement that :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
en
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
@lukaszlenart , I love to implement that but as changes may occur in
several places from Core to Plugins e.g. JSONResult, I decided to get your
agreement and confirmation if you also agree that
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
@lukaszlenart , another thing where I need your recommendation is, after
this improvement, all users have to convert from
```xml
```
to
```xml
```
in their exist
Github user lukaszlenart commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
Unacceptable ... what about annotations or conventions? Also it would be
good to have the attribute `bean` optional.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have y
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
@lukaszlenart , Yes, surely attribute `bean` is, will be and should be
optional. Also there are no problem with actions which used attribute `class`
as a class not a bean name. But unfortunately
Github user lukaszlenart commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
so if there is no `bean` attribute, it should fallback to an old behaviour,
though...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as w
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
@lukaszlenart , thank you, so I will add only one attribute named `bean`.
if specified, we use that improvement, elsewhere current behavior. i.e. we will
keep old behavior but with some specific
Github user lukaszlenart commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
Sure, go ahead :) I know it would be better to have just one implementation
but we can mark the old code as deprecated and remove it at some point.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Vote passed!
+1 (binding) x5
+1 (non-binding) x1
Thank you!
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
2017-03-06 11:54 GMT+01:00 Lukasz Lenart :
> The Apache Struts 2.5.10.1 test build is now available. It includes
> the latest security patch which fixes one possible vulnerability:
Vote passed!
+1 (binding) x3
+1 (non-binding) x1
Thank you
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
2017-03-06 12:58 GMT+01:00 Lukasz Lenart :
> The Apache Struts 2.3.32 test build is now available. It includes
> the latest security patch which fixes one possible vulnerability:
> -
Github user aleksandr-m commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
@yasserzamani *in case of when action are beans inside user's object
factory, we do not have any way except force user to change config and specify
real class*
Can you elaborate? It real
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
@aleksandr-m , as an example, consider when action proxified with another
technology like Spring and the user assumes that Struts2 only operates in it's
borders, but currently, Struts2 does not
Github user aleksandr-m commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/118
Let's break it down:
**chain**
First of all using `chain` is discouraged. Proxying the action itself is
not the best practice too.
If the only viable solution to know target
14 matches
Mail list logo
