I agree. If nobody can take care of them at the moment, then lets
re-schedule them
musachy
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:39 PM, James Holmes wrote:
> I'm not using either of those myself. We can always move the tickets to a
> later release if need be. I wouldn't let the Tiles and Portlet tickets hol
There are a couple of tickets related to porlets plugin and tiles,
scheduled for 2.1.3:
https://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=10030&fixfor=21864
can someone with either porltets or tiles experienc
I'm not using either of those myself. We can always move the tickets to a
later release if need be. I wouldn't let the Tiles and Portlet tickets hold
up a 2.1.3 release. I just assigned what I thought were bug tickets to
2.1.3. Anything that was a feature, I assigned to Future.
On Fri, Dec 19, 200
Be aware that new DateTime(null) results in "now". (go figure..)
So you may want to check the parameter 'Date start' for null.
Ronny
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Miguel wrote:
Something you can allways do, is to define a parallel set of
getter/setter in your bean with type java.util.Date that
Those will need NPE checks by the way.
:)
-bp
On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Miguel wrote:
Something you can allways do, is to define a parallel set of
getter/setter in your bean with type java.util.Date that internally
does the conversion.
public Date getStartDate() {
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> > Do we need a formal vote on this?
> >
>
> I don't think we need a vote, more like a consensus (see? I am
> learning!), which we seem to have. We can have it in 2.1 as an
> experimental feature, like we usually do. I will be doing more te
Something you can allways do, is to define a parallel set of
getter/setter in your bean with type java.util.Date that internally
does the conversion.
public Date getStartDate() {
return start.toDate();
}
public void setStartDate(Date start) {
Sounds good to me!
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> > Do we need a formal vote on this?
> >
>
> I don't think we need a vote, more like a consensus (see? I am
> learning!), which we seem to have. We can have it in 2.1 as an
> experimental feature, like we usually do. I w
> Do we need a formal vote on this?
>
I don't think we need a vote, more like a consensus (see? I am
learning!), which we seem to have. We can have it in 2.1 as an
experimental feature, like we usually do. I will be doing more testing
on it during the weekend, and then move it out of the sandbox n
