Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
The reason for this change is a statement in the Javadocs for
PageContext.include() that Tomcat 4 was not previously enforcing:
The current JspWriter out for this JSP is flushed as a
side effect of this call, prior to processing the include.
Ideally,
Micael Padraig Og mac Grene wrote:
Would you please expand on the ramifications?
Surely this does not mean that we won't be able to use jsp: include [etc]
tags? Does this mean that we won't be able to use code like:
try {
This will ruin the project I have been building. I cannot believe that is
possible.
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, October 28, 2001 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: Tomcat4, taglibs, and pageContext.include
I have to say that I personally think whomever made this decision made a
poor decision. I do not, of course, have all the facts and the reasons why
such a decision was made, but it would seem to be too drastic to be
justfied.
The use of templating in tag libraries centers around this sort of
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 8:19 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Tomcat4, taglibs, and pageContext.include
Micael Padraig Og mac Grene wrote:
Would you please expand on the ramifications?
Anyone working on this (or should I start)?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On Friday, October 12, 2001, at 07:57 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, the CGI problem doesn't seem to be resolved, it should be
mentioned
in the release notes ( for people
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4227.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4477.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Anyone working on this (or should I start)?
That's already been done (and integrated in 4.0.1).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On Friday, October 12, 2001, at 07:57 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, the CGI problem doesn't seem to be resolved,
Yes, but they KNOW.
And they insist a lot on how Tomcat 3.3 must keep compatibility with
the Java Servlet 2.2 and JSP 1.1 specifications, because it is the
reference implementation.
See the irony now?
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Bill Barker [mailto:[EMAIL
Very cool -- could you/someone point me to the fix for future reference?
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Anyone working on this (or should I start)?
That's already been done (and integrated in 4.0.1).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On Friday, October 12,
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4477.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
on 10/28/01 10:30 AM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but they KNOW.
And they insist a lot on how Tomcat 3.3 must keep compatibility with
the Java Servlet 2.2 and JSP 1.1 specifications, because it is the
reference implementation.
See the irony now?
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4481.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4482.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Riad Mohammed wrote:
The code added to Logger to turn off all logging of messages was done
temporarily and was never supposed to be part of an actual release.
What concerns me is that this is code in a static initializer which may
soon be shipping with Tomcat (apparently with or without a
18 matches
Mail list logo
