scantor commented on code in PR #51:
URL: https://github.com/apache/velocity-engine/pull/51#discussion_r1747036987
##########
spring-velocity-support/src/main/java/org/apache/velocity/spring/VelocityEngineFactory.java:
##########
@@ -259,41 +281,61 @@ protected VelocityEngine newVelocityEngine() throws
IOException, VelocityExcepti
*/
protected void initVelocityResourceLoader(VelocityEngine velocityEngine,
String resourceLoaderPath) {
if (isPreferFileSystemAccess()) {
+
+ // Only used with enhanced processing.
+ final List<String> filePaths = new ArrayList<>();
+ final List<String> nonFilePaths = new ArrayList<>();
+
+ String[] paths =
StringUtils.commaDelimitedListToStringArray(resourceLoaderPath);
+
// Try to load via the file system, fall back to
SpringResourceLoader
// (for hot detection of template changes, if possible).
- try {
- StringBuilder resolvedPath = new StringBuilder();
- String[] paths =
StringUtils.commaDelimitedListToStringArray(resourceLoaderPath);
- for (int i = 0; i < paths.length; i++) {
- String path = paths[i];
+ for (int i = 0; i < paths.length; i++) {
+ String path = paths[i];
+
+ // Don't check classpath: locations, they're not file-based.
+ // Some containers will expand jars and trigger false
positives.
+ // If enhanced behavior isn't on, this will
fall into the usual code it did before.
+ if (isSupportClasspathEnhancements() &&
path.startsWith(ResourceLoader.CLASSPATH_URL_PREFIX)) {
Review Comment:
Ir's configured via Spring, you'd set the property in your
VelocityEngineFactoryBean instance (which is a subclass of this class for what
I guess are historical reasons). The point is that it's not an engine setting,
but a control point for how the factory bean installs the 2 resource loaders by
injecting engine properties.
However, I still believe it's unneeded. There is no value to not setting it
to true because false (the old behavior) is just wrong and broken.
My advice is that I redo the patch without the option and we just fix the
bug.
I phrased it to begin with as an enhancement, but as I reviewed the original
code again, I just realize it's wrong. Whoeever wrote it either didn't have a
clear goal, or didn't manage to implement what they meant to.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
