[OS-webwork] Ognl list

Hi, I'm trying to create a list parameter for the radio template but with no success (but no errors too:) : #tag( Radio "name='comVisita' list='{ SIM , NÃO }' listKey='{ 0 , 1 }'" ) What is wrong? (of course I do not want to create the list at my action or model) Thanks + Samuel G. Mota + [EMA

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

bug? -Pat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Patterson Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 2:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes Is this standard going to be followed for every

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

o: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:36 AM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes I have to agree that the ${} syntax makes this easier Especially where you want to put in single quotes (see the indexed property example I just added

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

; Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes > > > What about > > > > ? The advantage of the velocity-style escaped syntax is that > it allows for more flexibility, so

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

ge- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boxed Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes Drew McAuliffe wrote: >I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reaso

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

OK -- let's just end this discussion. It's not going to change for the 2.0 release :P -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Carreira Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OG

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes > > > I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The > reason I like the optional syntax is solely for backwards > compatibility. > > -Original Message- >

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

boxed wrote: Drew McAuliffe wrote: I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I like the optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility. I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of writing personally. Let's compare the alternaitves: Am I wrong

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

Drew McAuliffe wrote: I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I like the optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility. I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of writing personally. Let's compare the alternaitves: Am I wrong in assuming

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes Jason Carreira wrote: > I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and use it... Definitely agree. Think about the case where many components/projects using WebWork needs to be merged into one big

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

What would be realy nice is if the JSTL's EL had ben written with extensibility in mind to begin with, a lot like what Joe Walnes ended up putting into the FormTags project. What worked there is that you had a "ww:" prefix to specify that the formtags were to use the expression language for webwork

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

Jason Carreira wrote: I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and use it... Definitely agree. Think about the case where many components/projects using WebWork needs to be merged into one big app. "Oh that won't work because we used optional method Foo, whereas you

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and use it... > -Original Message- > From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

om: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boxed Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes Patrick Lightbody wrote: > Hmm… this is pretty interesting. I’d like to hear the opinion from the > 1.4

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

Patrick Lightbody wrote: Hmm… this is pretty interesting. I’d like to hear the opinion from the 1.4 guys on this as well. I for one dispise the ${} JSTL/whatever syntax above all else. It's just plain retarded. Now, I realize that having to put ' around strings can be seen as annoying (althoug

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

, November 21, 2003 1:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes   I couldn't agree more. I've always found the triple-quoting ugly... makes my brain go all scrambled eggs. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

-quote (for backwards compatibility) and another way, you do it with velocity-style ${} syntax. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick LightbodySent: Friday, November 21, 2003 5:16 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

] Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes   I couldn't agree more. I've always found the triple-quoting ugly... makes my brain go all scrambled eggs. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Drew McAuliffe Se

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

ED]Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes I kind of agree. I think triple-quoting simple parameters like "name" is kind of silly. In fact, I've never really liked the triple-quoting much at all (it seems unwieldy to me), though I understand the

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

TECTED] On Behalf Of John PattersonSent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:38 AMTo: WebworkSubject: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes Hi,   I have just run my app with the release candidate and am in the process of changing many (but not all) of the tag attributes to use single quo

[OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes

Hi,   I have just run my app with the release candidate and am in the process of changing many (but not all) of the tag attributes to use single quotes for literals.  I am thinking that in many instances, evaluating the attribute tag is not really very helpful.  For example, the Bean tag has

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL type converter for x.y input names

side (key). -Pat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paulo Silveira Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL type converter for x.y input names Hello! I have a simple converter that works fine

[OS-webwork] OGNL type converter for x.y input names

Hello! I have a simple converter that works fine if I have the getter/setter directly in my action class public class MyAction extends ActionSupport { public void setCategories(Set categories) { } } MyAction-conversion.properites has: categories=br.com.CategoryConverter But, if I wan

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again

Eriksson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again Ok, thanks for the help. I didn't know about the "always use String[] in parameter map" thing. The number of input fields are dyn

RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again

11:55 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again > > > Ok, thanks for the help. > I didn't know about the "always use String[] in parameter map" thing. > > The number of input fields are dynamic in my view, and > there

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again

od which would use XWorks type conversion to use the first String in the array. John. - Original Message - From: "Jonas Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:13 PM Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again

in the array. John. - Original Message - From: "Jonas Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:13 PM Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL list question again > Hi! > > I can not understand why I get arrays

[OS-webwork] OGNL list question again

Hi! I can not understand why I get arrays (instead of Strings) when OGNL populates my list in my action! In action: // Use OgnlList so we don't get out of bounds private List theList = new OgnlList(String.class) public List getList() { return theList; } In view: and so on... Then in

RE: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior

A : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior It could be a nice idea, but could be dangerous, it should be optionnal. I'm looking foward to getting the ognl version that adds a NullHandler. OGNL 2.6.4 ? Cheers. Richard HALLIER Chef de projet [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior

e : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Patrick Lightbody Envoye : vendredi 17 octobre 2003 05:42 A : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior Actually, this is something I want to add to XWork "some day": a way to make Ognl automaticall

RE: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior

es if there is no-arg constructor. -Pat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Lamuette Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior I know this problem is not obviously in the sco

RE: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior

Hmm... I would have expected null as well... send a note to the OGNL lists... -Original Message- From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior I know this problem is not

[OS-webwork] [OGNL] strange (?) behavior

I know this problem is not obviously in the scope of this mailing list, but I'd like to know if I'm dreaming. public class Bar { private String name; ... } public class Foo { private Bar bar; ... } Executing Ognl.getValue("bar.name",foo) generates an exception whe

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL wrapping iterators?

That sucks! Can you open a bug with us and I'll then pester Drew Davidson to fix it :)   - Original Message - From: John Patterson To: Webwork Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:19 AM Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL wrapping iterators? I have just tried to us

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL wrapping iterators?

Should I upload it into Jira? John. - Original Message - From: John Patterson To: Webwork Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL wrapping iterators? I have just tried to use the Counter bean class (which implements Iterator) f

[OS-webwork] OGNL wrapping iterators?

I have just tried to use the Counter bean class (which implements Iterator) from WW1 like so: value="">

RE: [OS-webwork] ognl site down?

OK, I got it online. Found a cached version. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Douglass Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 5:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] ognl site down? It appears that the http://www.ognl.org

RE: [OS-webwork] ognl site down?

It appears that the http://www.ognl.org/ site is down at the moment. If anyone has the OGNL Guide (PDF), please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Much appreciated, Robert Douglass --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek hea

[OS-webwork] Ognl changes

I updated to the latest CVS sources today, I hadn't done so in about a month and after I did I noticed that a feature of Ognl appears to have stopped working. Previously, you'd be able to put a map on the value stack and be able to access all the objects through the keys within velocity templates.

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL 2.6.0

I have done this work, just haven't checked it in. -Pat - Original Message - From: "BOGAERT Mathias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:38 AM Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL 2.6.0 > Hi guys, > > I'm trying to g

[OS-webwork] OGNL 2.6.0

Hi guys, I'm trying to get Xwork working with OGNL 2.6.0, but I'm having troubles with getting the current evaluation from the context. It gives null back in CompoundRootAccessor when executing ActionInvocationTest: ognlContext.pushEvaluation(new Evaluation(ognlContext.getCurrentEvaluation().getN

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl and Type Conversion

From: "Cameron Braid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:32 PM Subject: [OS-webwork] Ognl and Type Conversion I have implemented my own type converters for my custom types to convert to and from string. These converters work perfectly

[OS-webwork] Ognl and Type Conversion

Title: Message I have implemented my own type converters for my custom types to convert to and from string.   These converters work perfectly when the Params Interceptor sets their values onto my actions.   When I am using a custom UI input... either through a custom JSP tag that extends Ab

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

Working on that right now :) - Original Message - From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Erik Beeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

-1 This seems like an ugly hack, I think it's especially important at this stage of dev to make things as hack-free as possible. Wouldn't it be possible to talk to the ognl guys and get info from them on how to best support our syntax? Quoting Erik Beeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Converting .. t

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

> Converting .. to [1] is easy enough, but what about "/"? Our converter would > need to be smart about foo/bar vs 10/5... or would we just not care about > mathematic operations? When did mathematic operations come into the picture? The current EL doesn't support mathematic operations, does it?

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

preprocessor needs to be simple and fast, otherwise we'll end up writing our own parser! -Pat - Original Message - From: "Erik Beeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:22 AM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up

RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

Could we write a small preprocessor that would just convert "../blah" to "[1].blah" before handing it off to Ognl? Would it help the situation if we removed a means of moving up and down in the stack like in Velocity? --Erik --- This SF.NET e

RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

> -Original Message- > From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down() > > > It is possible, but it involves basicacally writing a

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

3, 2003 6:19 AM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down() > > -Original Message- > > From: boxed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > If Ognl is just totally unacceptable, then let's discuss > > two options: > > > > When we

RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

> -Original Message- > From: boxed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > If Ognl is just totally unacceptable, then let's discuss > two options: > > When we discussed this in #java it sounded to me like one > could plug in a custom syntax parser into OGNL, thus solving > this issue nicely.

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

> If Ognl is just totally unacceptable, then let's discuss two options: When we discussed this in #java it sounded to me like one could plug in a custom syntax parser into OGNL, thus solving this issue nicely. Did I misunderstand? Anders Hovmöller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://boxed.killingar.net -

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

Patrick Lightbody wrote: If Ognl is just totally unacceptable, then let's discuss two options: 1) Redevelop the WW EL with speed as well as type conversion both as a top priority 2) Develop XWork to support pluggable ValueStack implementations Just a point on 2. This will introduce muchos confus

[OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()

I know that the change from ".." to "[1]" has been quite a sticky point for some, so I have some other proposals, let me know what you think: The CompoundRoot object will _always_ be the foundation for the OgnlValueStack. I added a method peek() to it so that we could do: I had to do th

RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Sunday, December 29, 2002 10:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL On Sunday, December 29, 2002, at 10:20 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > However, by using Ognl we gain not having to maintian our own EL and a > whole > bunch of speed, as wel

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Agreed, especially with these latest (great) ideas from Rickard et all. - Original Message - From: "Joseph Ottinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:29 AM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > I

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

I'd also like to point out that it's possible to view XWork as a different product than WebWork. I don't know if that's the intent, but XWork seems to be slightly hamstrung by trying to be "WebWork 1.4 nee 2.0" - which may be acceptable, maybe not. It may be in its best interest to say "Well, we'r

RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

m: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 8:42 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > > >Vedovato Paolo wrote: >> I think that it's a very important point to be able to >switch to XWork >&g

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Vedovato Paolo wrote: I think that it's a very important point to be able to switch to XWork without having code changes AND to have all the improvements (like performance etc.). Hm... not sure if that's realistic. Switching with minimal code changes, yes, but with no code changes I don't know.

RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

h the WebWork community. -Paolo >-Original Message- >From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:51 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > > >Hrm - is / used for anything already in

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

> How would you determine what code to use? It would be great if XWork > could standardize on ONE way to do this. I was thinking that the old taglibs would just be kept around and they would wrap the new underlying view code and inform them that they wish to use the old ValueStack. > > However,

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Patrick Lightbody wrote: As for using the other expression language, yes, Ognl supports any kind of expression tree (Node interface), but that would be a lot of work to implement the WW EL in to Ognl's form. An easier way (and this will be included for backwards compatibility) would be to just inc

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Good question, I'll take a look in to this some more and get back to ya'll :) - Original Message - From: "Joseph Ottinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement fo

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

; Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > On Sunday, December 29, 2002, at 10:20 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > > > However, by using Ognl we gain not having to maintian our own EL and a > > whole > > bunch of spee

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

expressions). The only cost is switching your brain to use "." instead of > "/" and "[1]" instead of "../". > > -Pat > > - Original Message - > From: "boxed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent:

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > > "[1].name" -- "../name" > > does this mean you can do [someInt].name? In any case I find the WW EL >

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

On Sunday, December 29, 2002, at 10:20 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote: However, by using Ognl we gain not having to maintian our own EL and a whole bunch of speed, as well as more powerful features (Ognl can even do lamba expressions). The only cost is switching your brain to use "." instead of "

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

> "[1].name" -- "../name" does this mean you can do [someInt].name? In any case I find the WW EL syntax clearer. Is it possible to plug in a different parser to OGNL that takes WW syntax instead? Anders Hovmöller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://boxed.killingar.net

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

with # in one example, which is pretty straight forward. The .. stuff is a bit different, but the idea is the basically the same. It says: "search starting from N elements down". -Pat - Original Message - From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

n the value stack. > > -Pat > > - Original Message - > From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 9:37 AM > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > > >

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Message - From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > You can find more about the syntax at www.ognl.org, b

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

son().getName() > "map["blah"]" -> action.getMap().get("blah") > > -Pat > > - Original Message - > From: "Joseph Ottinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 11:28 AM

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

--- From: "Joseph Ottinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > I guess I'd like to see the actual expression used: > > (calls "foo.getBar(),"

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > You can find more about the syntax at www.ognl.org, but here are some > > examples compared to WebWork: > > > > Ognl -- WebWor

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

I guess I'd like to see the actual expression used: (calls "foo.getBar()," or...) On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Rickard Öberg wrote: > Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > You can find more about the syntax at www.ognl.org, but here are some > > examples compared to WebWork: > > > > Ognl -- WebWork

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Patrick Lightbody wrote: You can find more about the syntax at www.ognl.org, but here are some examples compared to WebWork: Ognl -- WebWork "name" -- "name" :) "person.name" -- "person/name" "map["blah"]" -- "map['blah']" How does this work in JSP's? isn't going to work

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

ot; "array[0]" -- "array[0]" -- "../name" That's about it! Haven't figured out the ".." issue yet. We may need to extend Ognl's language to add something like this. -Pat - Original Message ----- From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMA

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Can someone make a list comparing the three? That way we can see what each one gives us. I'm sure Maurice would have preferred JSTL's EL, and when JSP 2.0 comes out, most people will expect the standard as well. On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > So the current XWork code uses the ex

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Where specially in the findValue is the bottleneck? I was expecting to see this implemented with JavaCC but I don't know if that produces anything that's quicker. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

Patrick Lightbody wrote: So the current XWork code uses the existing WW expression language as is, only using Ognl for setting/getting properties as well as type conversion. I was playing with making an OgnlValueStack and it's literally 10 lines of code and MUCH faster. I was thinking that between

[OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL

So the current XWork code uses the existing WW expression language as is, only using Ognl for setting/getting properties as well as type conversion. I was playing with making an OgnlValueStack and it's literally 10 lines of code and MUCH faster. I was thinking that between JSTL and Ognl, the need f

Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL

The OGNL performance increase doesn't do anyone any good if the rest of WebWork is too unstable to upgrade to. First things first. Stablize the current code in CVS. Then work on new features. Hani Suleiman wrote: Well, the ognl stuff seems very promising, how about having it implemented on a

[OS-webwork] OGNL

Well, the ognl stuff seems very promising, how about having it implemented on a branch (say, OGNL_1 or something), with a view to integrating it once others have had a look and feel it's worthwhile? Again, I stress that the goal for adding it (from my perspective at least) is performance. There sh

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl status

I'll get some demo implementations of JBeans in the sandbox/xwork module and post my results. -Pat - Original Message - From: "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:59 AM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Ogn

RE: [OS-webwork] Ognl status

We should also check out http://jbeans.org/ for this stuff... It looks pretty cool. -Original Message- From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:plightbo@;cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Drew Davidson Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl status Followup

Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl status

f conversion). -Pat - Original Message - From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:44 PM Subject: [OS-webwork] Ognl status > OK, I was playing with Ognl today and performance became a problem. Below is > my

[OS-webwork] Ognl status

OK, I was playing with Ognl today and performance became a problem. Below is my post to ognl-interest, I'll keep everyone posted. In the meantime, maybe ditching PropertyEditors but coming up with our own (FAST) BeanUtil implementation that doesn't use PropertyEditors would be best. It shouldn't ne