As a reminder, I have created
"Replace all other uses than Groovy (UEL and BSH) by Groovy in widgets and minilang"
at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3948
Jacques
From: "Bruno Busco"
Thank you guys.
Done in trunk at rev. 992441
-Bruno
2010/9/1 Bruno Busco
Thank you,
-Bruno
Thank you guys.
Done in trunk at rev. 992441
-Bruno
2010/9/1 Bruno Busco
> Thank you,
> -Bruno
>
> 2010/9/1 Scott Gray
>
> I wasn't actually suggesting it my email, I was just lamenting the missing
>> ?: operator. But I admit I've wondered from time to time why we didn't just
>> use groovy a
Thank you,
-Bruno
2010/9/1 Scott Gray
> I wasn't actually suggesting it my email, I was just lamenting the missing
> ?: operator. But I admit I've wondered from time to time why we didn't just
> use groovy as our expression tool, with support for categories, operator
> overloading and closures,
I wasn't actually suggesting it my email, I was just lamenting the missing ?:
operator. But I admit I've wondered from time to time why we didn't just use
groovy as our expression tool, with support for categories, operator
overloading and closures, I can't really think of anything that UEL can
From: "David E Jones"
I agree, Groovy is not just way better than BSH, but also better than UEL too.
It might be a bit of a pain to change now, but I
don't know. While designing based on the idea of starting over I was planning on a move
to "everything's Groovy" to use Groovy for
all expressio
I agree, Groovy is not just way better than BSH, but also better than UEL too.
It might be a bit of a pain to change now, but I don't know. While designing
based on the idea of starting over I was planning on a move to "everything's
Groovy" to use Groovy for all expressions, scriptlets, and inl
Sounds fine to me. As an alternative you can do something like this:
I know it's a bit verbose but it should also work. "empty" is a UEL operator
that works in a similar fashion to Groovy's "Truth" boolean casting.
Unfortunately UEL doesn't support groovy's elvis operator or it would be easi
Le 31/08/2010 19:29, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
In such case I handle the field with set and groovy before in the
row-action. But yes, why not a default-value?
Jacques
+1 for default-value. It's many case that possible to show a value if
nothing is present in context.
Nicolas
Fr
Hi Bruno,
In such case I handle the field with set and groovy before in the row-action.
But yes, why not a default-value?
Jacques
From: "Bruno Busco"
Hi,
I need to show a default string (e.g. "None") in a field of a form of type
"list".
I was looking for something like...
...but the
Hi,
I need to show a default string (e.g. "None") in a field of a form of type
"list".
I was looking for something like...
...but the display tag does not support the default-value.
Would it make sense to add it?
Thanks,
Bruno
10 matches
Mail list logo
