On 07/03/2010 21:26, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2010/3/7 Konstantin Kolinko <knst.koli...@gmail.com>: >> 2010/3/7 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: >>> On 07/03/2010 18:45, ma...@apache.org wrote: >>>> Author: markt >>>> Date: Sun Mar 7 18:45:50 2010 >>>> New Revision: 920055 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=920055&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Both TLD and web.xml determine if deferred EL syntax is treated as EL or >>>> as a literal >> >> Ah, I see. That is said in the chapter "Backwards Compatibility with >> JSP 2.0" that precedes the main spec pages (page xxiv in JSP 2.2 >> Specification). >> >> Best regards, >> Konstantin Kolinko >> > > Re: r920110: > > 2010/3/7 <ma...@apache.org>: >> Author: markt >> Date: Sun Mar 7 20:54:01 2010 >> New Revision: 920110 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=920110&view=rev >> Log: >> isELIgnored depends on library version and web.xml declaration >> >> Modified: >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/jasper/compiler/Validator.java >> ========================================================= >> --- tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/jasper/compiler/Validator.java (original) >> +++ tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/jasper/compiler/Validator.java Sun Mar 7 >> 20:54:01 2010 >> @@ -1077,12 +1077,15 @@ >> boolean deferred = false; >> double libraryVersion = Double.parseDouble( >> tagInfo.getTagLibrary().getRequiredVersion()); >> + boolean elIgnored = >> + pageInfo.isELIgnored() || >> + libraryVersion < 2.0; >> boolean deferredSyntaxAllowedAsLiteral = >> pageInfo.isDeferredSyntaxAllowedAsLiteral() || >> libraryVersion < 2.1; >> >> ELNode.Nodes el = null; >> - if (!runtimeExpression && !pageInfo.isELIgnored()) { >> + if (!runtimeExpression && !elIgnored) { >> el = ELParser.parse(attrs.getValue(i), >> deferredSyntaxAllowedAsLiteral); >> Iterator<ELNode> nodes = el.iterator(); >> > > I see no provision in the spec for the above change. > > The chapter "Backwards Compatibility with JSP 2.0" that I mentioned above > does say that only about #{} expressions. > > The chapter "Backwards Compatibility with JSP 1.2" of JSP 2.0 spec > (page 20/478) or JSP.3.3.2 Deactivating EL Evaluation of JSP 2.0 spec > (page 123/478) do not mention that either.
The TCK passes either way. Given that the spec doesn't cover this and neither does the TCK do we: a) stick to the letter of the spec b) treat isELIgnored and isDeferredSyntaxAllowedAsLiteral consistently I have a preference for b) but if the majority disagree I'm happy to revert. In a similar area on which the spec is silent, if I use a TLD that declares it requires JSP 2.1 in a web applciation that declares servlet 2.3 in web.xml is that an error? At the moment it works but it feels wrong. Thoughts? Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
