RE: Strange behaviour with buffers
>Skip the buffering and skip the headache. Why are you using >these include buffering directives in the first place? Legacy. Don't worry. As soon as I have the time to get rid of them, I will! I know what needs to be done, I just need the time to do it. J. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour with buffers
Hi, >Indeed, that did puzzle me. But I am not a Java or JSP expert by any means >and BEA's stance is "Our behaviour meets the spec, our behaviour is >correct." BEA's stance has been like that (and wrong) in the past. That's not a knock on them. >One big problem I had (have!) was finding the official JSP Spec. This link Finding the spec is easy: go to http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/reference/api/index.html and scroll down to the Specifications section, click on the Download link next to 2.0-final. It's hard to bookmark the actual download link because it contains session data. >My head is beginning to hurt. > >Jason "Dazed and confused" Irwin Skip the buffering and skip the headache. Why are you using these include buffering directives in the first place? Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour with buffers
>That statement from the site is wrong in at least one case: > page import >May be it's wrong in the other cases too. Indeed, that did puzzle me. But I am not a Java or JSP expert by any means and BEA's stance is "Our behaviour meets the spec, our behaviour is correct." One big problem I had (have!) was finding the official JSP Spec. This link is (I think) to the spec and it seems to refute BEA's stance. But I cannot be sure. http://sunsdlctemp2-vhost1.cambma1-dc1.cscehub.com/servlet/EComFileServlet// ESD6/JSCDL/jsp/2.0-fr/jsp-2_0-fr-spec.pdf?ActionId=verify&TicketId=2aPxkVSIO Rta&TicketServerUrl=LxU7fwxQLugy%2BErpKYcvIWlUfSBzPG60JI8nt3z9f3UsBDtcUw13tW 6%2B&GroupName=EedEWQ%3D%3D [JSP.1.10.1, 1-43, page 79] "A translation unit (JSP source file and any files included via the include directive) can contain more than one instance of the page directive, all the attributes will apply to the complete translation unit (i.e. page directives are position independent)." My head is beginning to hurt. Jason "Dazed and confused" Irwin This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour with buffers
That statement from the site is wrong in at least one case: page import May be it's wrong in the other cases too. AFAIK the spec doesn't mention such restriction. (At least I couldn't find it) > -Original Message- > From: Jason Irwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:00 PM > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > Subject: RE: Strange behaviour with buffers > > > "Note that the page directive does not apply to any > dynamic included files;". > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour with buffers
Hi, Ahh, I see what you mean. That's an interesting question, and I'm not a JSP expert (nor am I a huge fan of these low-level buffering directives in the presentation layer in the first place, but that's another story), so I'll let Kin-Man or another expert answer if they feel like it ;) Yoav Shapira Millennium Research Informatics >-Original Message- >From: Jason Irwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:00 AM >To: 'Tomcat Users List' >Subject: RE: Strange behaviour with buffers > >No, they are saying the page buffer declaration in the child include in >invalid as it is not supported in the spec. What they quoted at me was: >http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/tags/syntaxref.fm7.html >It is stated that "Note that the page directive does not apply to any >dynamic included files;". > >If I move the directive to the parent, it works (as you'd expect). But >what >should the behaviour be if the directive appears in the child? BEA claim >it >will be ignored. And should the parent and child have separate JspWriters, >or the same one? > >J. > >-Original Message----- >From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 19 May 2004 13:54 >To: Tomcat Users List >Subject: RE: Strange behaviour with buffers > > > >Hi, >So BEA is telling you that if you say page buffer="64kb" and they give >you 12kb, that's the spec? ;) > >Yoav Shapira >Millennium Research Informatics > >___ _ >This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The >service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive >anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: >http://www.star.net.uk >___ _ > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour with buffers
No, they are saying the page buffer declaration in the child include in invalid as it is not supported in the spec. What they quoted at me was: http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/tags/syntaxref.fm7.html It is stated that "Note that the page directive does not apply to any dynamic included files;". If I move the directive to the parent, it works (as you'd expect). But what should the behaviour be if the directive appears in the child? BEA claim it will be ignored. And should the parent and child have separate JspWriters, or the same one? J. -Original Message- From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 May 2004 13:54 To: Tomcat Users List Subject: RE: Strange behaviour with buffers Hi, So BEA is telling you that if you say page buffer="64kb" and they give you 12kb, that's the spec? ;) Yoav Shapira Millennium Research Informatics This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour with buffers
Hi, So BEA is telling you that if you say page buffer="64kb" and they give you 12kb, that's the spec? ;) Yoav Shapira Millennium Research Informatics >-Original Message- >From: Jason Irwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:23 AM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: Strange behaviour with buffers > >Apologies if this is in the wrong group, I think that "User" is the right >one. > >I have noted a difference between how Tomcat (4.0.6 and 4.1.127) and >WebLogic (7.0 and 8.1) assign buffers, and I'm trying to figure out which >one is correct. I have an "outer" page that does not define any buffer, >and >an "inner" page that does, e.g.: >"outer.jsp" > > >Outer buffer is <%=out.getBufferSize()%> >Outer remaining is <%=out.getRemaining()%> > >Outer buffer is now <%=out.getBufferSize()%> >Outer remaining is now <%=out.getRemaining()%> > > > >"inner.jsp" ><%@ page buffer="64kb" %> >Inner buffer is <%=out.getBufferSize()%> >Inner remaining is <%=out.getRemaining()%> > >Tomcat reports 8kb for "outer.jsp" and then 64kb for "inner.jsp". The >remaining buffer sizes are unrelated. WebLogic reports 12kb for both and >the remaining buffer are related. It's as if Tomcat creates new JspWriter >for each dynamic include, but WebLogic keeps using the same JspWriter. BEA >have confirmed that this is their expected behaviour. > >Is anyone able to confirm if BEA are correct in their interpretation of the >JSP Specification and, if so, why Tomcat is behaving the way it does? Is >this just a case of a differing opinion on the same spec? I've had a look >through the documentation and drawn a blank. > >Thanks in advance, > >Jason. > >___ _ >This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The >service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive >anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: >http://www.star.net.uk >___ _ > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
