David Jencks wrote:
I haven't done any speed measurements yet, have you?
It does have an impact.
I have added a system property to allow specifying if the instance
manager should be used to create tag instances (default to not using it).
Rémy
---
On May 24, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
I tend to agree that a new branch is more appropriate. However,
earlier versions of the patch had a compatibility layer so the old
api could continue to work. I'm happy to add that back in on
request.
I am examini
David Jencks wrote:
I tend to agree that a new branch is more appropriate. However, earlier
versions of the patch had a compatibility layer so the old api could
continue to work. I'm happy to add that back in on request.
I am examining the patch in detail as part of the new trunk branch
(ad
On May 17, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
As far as I know I've addressed all the issues that were raised,
but that might have a tenuous relationship to whether I actually
did :-). I'd certainly appreciate review by tomcat committers
before I completely forge
David Jencks wrote:
As far as I know I've addressed all the issues that were raised, but
that might have a tenuous relationship to whether I actually did :-).
I'd certainly appreciate review by tomcat committers before I completely
forget how my patch works :-)
The patch could see minor modi
On May 16, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
On Apr 12, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12355273/
GERONIMO-3010-4.patch In addition, this one combines the
InstanceManager interfaces. I think this is a bad id
On Apr 12, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12355273/
GERONIMO-3010-4.patch In addition, this one combines the
InstanceManager interfaces. I think this is a bad idea because it
forces jasper to use an interface sh
David Jencks wrote:
Excellent, thanks! Would this be shortly after 6.0.11 is out or further
in the future? If you have any guess about a date it would be much
appreciated.
No idea. For example, I thought 6.0.11 would be ok, but it's not. I
don't know if I'll commit as is either, since I did
On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12355273/
GERONIMO-3010-4.patch In addition, this one combines the
InstanceManager interfaces. I think this is a bad idea because it
forces jasper to use an interface sh
David Jencks wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12355273/GERONIMO-3010-4.patch
In addition, this one combines the InstanceManager interfaces. I think
this is a bad idea because it forces jasper to use an interface shared
with catalina, which the previous patch does not.
I've come up with a couple more patches that try to address your
concerns:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12355259/
GERONIMO-3010-3c.patch
This one eliminates backwards compatibility support for
AnnotationProcessor and eliminates the replaceable aspects of jasper
Instance
David Blevins wrote:
On Apr 6, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
but I won't put it in the org.apache package.
There are not too many solutions to this problem, and (unfortunately
for you, apparently) I think it's the most appropriate, or least
inappropriate if y
On Apr 6, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
but I won't put it in the org.apache package.
There are not too many solutions to this problem, and
(unfortunately for you, apparently) I think it's the most
appropriate, or least inappropriate if you prefer.
Just as
David Jencks wrote:
but I won't put it in the org.apache package.
There are not too many solutions to this problem, and (unfortunately for
you, apparently) I think it's the most appropriate, or least
inappropriate if you prefer. I was already aware it was possible to have
one interface in Ja
On Apr 6, 2007, at 2:54 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
i've worked on this some more and come up with a patch that I feel
more or less comfortable showing to tomcat :-) at https://
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3010 or directly https://
issues.apache.org/jira/secure/
David Jencks wrote:
i've worked on this some more and come up with a patch that I feel more
or less comfortable showing to tomcat :-) at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3010 or directly
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12355053/GERONIMO-3010-3a.patch
Thanks.
I
On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Right now, it's mostly pita-win (it's a significant
refactoring) :D You should IMO offer some incentive as part of
this to justify the refactoring, such as support for web.xml
annotation overrides in standalone Tomcat (as you can see, ther
On Mar 27, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
compiled jsps
If you read the spec literally, they can't be annotated, but this
is quite arbitrary IMO (as soon as they're mapped in web.xml, they
can).
Doh! Of course you're right. I just haven't seen a jsp with
David Jencks wrote:
compiled jsps
If you read the spec literally, they can't be annotated, but this is
quite arbitrary IMO (as soon as they're mapped in web.xml, they can).
I'm pretty sure that someone who had
more than my 2 days acquaintance with jasper could in a couple of
minutes point
On Mar 25, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
I personally think the AnnotationProcessor is a very questionable
idea and hope no one uses it. However, it is pretty common now.
The point of the adapter is to show that tomcat can still support
people who want to i
On Mar 24, 2007, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Mar 24, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
"Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
yo,
I've been in touch with the folks at Geronimo.
They use dependency injection, and have a suggestion on
David Jencks wrote:
I personally think the AnnotationProcessor is a very questionable idea
and hope no one uses it. However, it is pretty common now. The point
of the adapter is to show that tomcat can still support people who want
to integrate via something like AnnotationProcessor. I certa
On Mar 24, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
"Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
yo,
I've been in touch with the folks at Geronimo.
They use dependency injection, and have a suggestion on how they
would
like the annotation processor to b
Thanks for your interest!
On Mar 24, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Fabien Carrion wrote:
Hi,
Here is my point of view.
I like the idea of "" to be replaced by "nice code that can do the object creation
and injection in one step".
As I am still new on the code of Tomcat, having all the code
concentrated
Fabien Carrion wrote:
Hi,
Here is my point of view.
I like the idea of "" to be replaced by "nice code that can do the object creation
and injection in one step".
As I am still new on the code of Tomcat, having all the code
concentrated for the object creation and injection is a good idea. I
r
Hi,
Here is my point of view.
I like the idea of "" to be replaced by "nice code that can do the object creation
and injection in one step".
As I am still new on the code of Tomcat, having all the code
concentrated for the object creation and injection is a good idea. I
remember to have problem
thanks for the feedback, I didn't look closely into the patch to see
what it was doing.
I'll communicate this to them
Filip
Bill Barker wrote:
"Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
yo,
I've been in touch with the folks at Geronimo.
They use de
"Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> yo,
> I've been in touch with the folks at Geronimo.
> They use dependency injection, and have a suggestion on how they would
> like the annotation processor to be able to be injected into tomcat
>
> Here is
28 matches
Mail list logo
