That's what I was wondering about ... Sounds like I don't want to use ognl too
much within my new code if I want to reduce my future porting headaches.
-Pat
--- Henri Dupre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Patrick Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there --
> >
> > I saw this p
On 8/29/06, Patrick Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there --
I saw this post (
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=41923)
over on theserverside. It was announcing Stripes 1.4. The original post
and
comments are all refering to what a dog ognl is from a performance
perspec
Just wondering... why isn't this included in the Tapestry 4/4.1
distribution?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: terça-feira, 29 de agosto de 2006 12:17
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: should/is Tagestry getting rid of ognl?
My understandi
My understanding is that tap4, internally, uses ognl much less than before.
In terms of binding properties, since tap4 lets you develop custom binding
mechanisms, you could always write your own replacement and plug it in.
But then, Howard's already done that. :) Take a look at
http://howardlewissh
I believe Wicket already uses something developed by their team.
On 8/29/06, Patrick Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there --
I saw this post (
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=41923)
over on theserverside. It was announcing Stripes 1.4. The original post
and
comments
Hi there --
I saw this post (http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=41923)
over on theserverside. It was announcing Stripes 1.4. The original post and
comments are all refering to what a dog ognl is from a performance perspective.
So I got to ask the question is Tapestry going to
