You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@groovy.apache.org by Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com> on 2017/04/19 14:21:26 UTC
Raising my hand
Hi,
I was thinking of picking up https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200
"include appropriate JSP 2.0/EL implicit variables in Groovlets"
Besides the fix, I will also write the test case and update docs.
Would this be something you would consider for 2.4.12 or a later release?
Please suggest. Thank you.
Cheers,
Yazad
Re: Raising my hand
Posted by Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>.
Thank you Paul, I will look around for other tickets where I could
help with. I am open to suggestions. Thank you.
Regards,
Yazad Khambata
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Yazad,
>
> Thanks for your excellent analysis. You have confirmed what my suspicions
> were. The one advantage of adding the extra implicit objects would be to
> assist with people copying and pasting between JSP/Servlets and
> GSP/Groovlets. But the current support covers a lot of cases and we haven't
> had as fair as I know any user demand to cover the other cases. I suggest we
> close this issue and let user demand drive further work.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I have added comments on the JIRA
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200)
>>
>> Brief summary - page, pageContext, and config are not supported by
>> groovlets but for the most parts they would be redundant and/or not
>> very useful since,
>>
>> 1. config pulls initialization config for a specific JSP (or Servlet)
>> from the web.xml - and we do not define declare individual groovlets
>> in the web.xml this feature may not make sense.
>> 2. page and pageContext - page is not useful as-is as it is literally
>> java.lang.Object reference referring to "this" JSP. pageContext is
>> more useful and used heavily when working with Tag Libraries. However
>> since we don't support tag libraries in groovlets this feature may not
>> be very useful.
>> 3. All other features supported by config, page and pageContext can
>> work worked around by using the other implicit objects supported by
>> groovlets.
>>
>> Conclusion: In the context of groovlets there is little reason to miss
>> these 3 objects, HOWEVER, all 3 are easy to incorporate and make
>> groovlet compatible with the Implicit Object requirement of the JSP
>> Specification v2.3.
>>
>> Please let me know if you need any more info and how you would like me
>> to proceed. Thank you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yazad Khambata
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just forwarding - didn't realise it wasn't to the list.
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
>> > Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:19 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Raising my hand
>> > To: Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Updating the ticket would be great. We can report a summary back here if
>> > needed once the path forward is a bit clearer.
>> >
>> > Cheers, Paul.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thank you Paul, I can take up reviewing and provide you with the
>> >> difference if any between the current JSP spec and the current
>> >> implementation in GroovyServlet. Would you prefer me providing the diff
>> >> on
>> >> the mail list or would you rather have me document that on the ticket?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Yazad
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:09 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Yazad,
>> >>>
>> >>> We are always keen to see progress being made on the code base.
>> >>> GROOVY-1200 looks a little old and I wonder whether some of the
>> >>> functionality is already in place. I left a comment on the issue
>> >>> suggesting
>> >>> we review what was being asked for in that issue and what is currently
>> >>> supported. If there are still gaps in what is currently supported or
>> >>> non-conflicting improvements we can make to better support JSP to GSP
>> >>> translation, then we'd be keen for work on those to be made. The 2.4
>> >>> stream
>> >>> is in maintenance mode so I suspect that 2.5.0 would be the target
>> >>> version.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers, Paul.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was thinking of picking up
>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "include appropriate JSP 2.0/EL implicit variables in Groovlets"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Besides the fix, I will also write the test case and update docs.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Would this be something you would consider for 2.4.12 or a later
>> >>>> release?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please suggest. Thank you.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> Yazad
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
Re: Raising my hand
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
Hi Yazad,
Thanks for your excellent analysis. You have confirmed what my suspicions
were. The one advantage of adding the extra implicit objects would be to
assist with people copying and pasting between JSP/Servlets and
GSP/Groovlets. But the current support covers a lot of cases and we haven't
had as fair as I know any user demand to cover the other cases. I suggest
we close this issue and let user demand drive further work.
Cheers, Paul.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I have added comments on the JIRA
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200)
>
> Brief summary - page, pageContext, and config are not supported by
> groovlets but for the most parts they would be redundant and/or not
> very useful since,
>
> 1. config pulls initialization config for a specific JSP (or Servlet)
> from the web.xml - and we do not define declare individual groovlets
> in the web.xml this feature may not make sense.
> 2. page and pageContext - page is not useful as-is as it is literally
> java.lang.Object reference referring to "this" JSP. pageContext is
> more useful and used heavily when working with Tag Libraries. However
> since we don't support tag libraries in groovlets this feature may not
> be very useful.
> 3. All other features supported by config, page and pageContext can
> work worked around by using the other implicit objects supported by
> groovlets.
>
> Conclusion: In the context of groovlets there is little reason to miss
> these 3 objects, HOWEVER, all 3 are easy to incorporate and make
> groovlet compatible with the Implicit Object requirement of the JSP
> Specification v2.3.
>
> Please let me know if you need any more info and how you would like me
> to proceed. Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Yazad Khambata
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Just forwarding - didn't realise it wasn't to the list.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
> > Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Raising my hand
> > To: Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > Updating the ticket would be great. We can report a summary back here if
> > needed once the path forward is a bit clearer.
> >
> > Cheers, Paul.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you Paul, I can take up reviewing and provide you with the
> >> difference if any between the current JSP spec and the current
> >> implementation in GroovyServlet. Would you prefer me providing the diff
> on
> >> the mail list or would you rather have me document that on the ticket?
> >>
> >> Thanks again.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Yazad
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:09 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Yazad,
> >>>
> >>> We are always keen to see progress being made on the code base.
> >>> GROOVY-1200 looks a little old and I wonder whether some of the
> >>> functionality is already in place. I left a comment on the issue
> suggesting
> >>> we review what was being asked for in that issue and what is currently
> >>> supported. If there are still gaps in what is currently supported or
> >>> non-conflicting improvements we can make to better support JSP to GSP
> >>> translation, then we'd be keen for work on those to be made. The 2.4
> stream
> >>> is in maintenance mode so I suspect that 2.5.0 would be the target
> version.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers, Paul.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I was thinking of picking up
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200
> >>>>
> >>>> "include appropriate JSP 2.0/EL implicit variables in Groovlets"
> >>>>
> >>>> Besides the fix, I will also write the test case and update docs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would this be something you would consider for 2.4.12 or a later
> >>>> release?
> >>>>
> >>>> Please suggest. Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Yazad
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
Re: Raising my hand
Posted by Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>.
Hi Paul,
I have added comments on the JIRA
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200)
Brief summary - page, pageContext, and config are not supported by
groovlets but for the most parts they would be redundant and/or not
very useful since,
1. config pulls initialization config for a specific JSP (or Servlet)
from the web.xml - and we do not define declare individual groovlets
in the web.xml this feature may not make sense.
2. page and pageContext - page is not useful as-is as it is literally
java.lang.Object reference referring to "this" JSP. pageContext is
more useful and used heavily when working with Tag Libraries. However
since we don't support tag libraries in groovlets this feature may not
be very useful.
3. All other features supported by config, page and pageContext can
work worked around by using the other implicit objects supported by
groovlets.
Conclusion: In the context of groovlets there is little reason to miss
these 3 objects, HOWEVER, all 3 are easy to incorporate and make
groovlet compatible with the Implicit Object requirement of the JSP
Specification v2.3.
Please let me know if you need any more info and how you would like me
to proceed. Thank you.
Regards,
Yazad Khambata
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> Just forwarding - didn't realise it wasn't to the list.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
> Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Raising my hand
> To: Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Updating the ticket would be great. We can report a summary back here if
> needed once the path forward is a bit clearer.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Paul, I can take up reviewing and provide you with the
>> difference if any between the current JSP spec and the current
>> implementation in GroovyServlet. Would you prefer me providing the diff on
>> the mail list or would you rather have me document that on the ticket?
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Yazad
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:09 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Yazad,
>>>
>>> We are always keen to see progress being made on the code base.
>>> GROOVY-1200 looks a little old and I wonder whether some of the
>>> functionality is already in place. I left a comment on the issue suggesting
>>> we review what was being asked for in that issue and what is currently
>>> supported. If there are still gaps in what is currently supported or
>>> non-conflicting improvements we can make to better support JSP to GSP
>>> translation, then we'd be keen for work on those to be made. The 2.4 stream
>>> is in maintenance mode so I suspect that 2.5.0 would be the target version.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Paul.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of picking up
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200
>>>>
>>>> "include appropriate JSP 2.0/EL implicit variables in Groovlets"
>>>>
>>>> Besides the fix, I will also write the test case and update docs.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be something you would consider for 2.4.12 or a later
>>>> release?
>>>>
>>>> Please suggest. Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Yazad
>>>
>>>
>
>
Fwd: Raising my hand
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
Just forwarding - didn't realise it wasn't to the list.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Raising my hand
To: Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
Updating the ticket would be great. We can report a summary back here if
needed once the path forward is a bit clearer.
Cheers, Paul.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Paul, I can take up reviewing and provide you with the
> difference if any between the current JSP spec and the current
> implementation in GroovyServlet. Would you prefer me providing the diff on
> the mail list or would you rather have me document that on the ticket?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Cheers,
> Yazad
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:09 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yazad,
>>
>> We are always keen to see progress being made on the code base.
>> GROOVY-1200 looks a little old and I wonder whether some of the
>> functionality is already in place. I left a comment on the issue suggesting
>> we review what was being asked for in that issue and what is currently
>> supported. If there are still gaps in what is currently supported or
>> non-conflicting improvements we can make to better support JSP to GSP
>> translation, then we'd be keen for work on those to be made. The 2.4 stream
>> is in maintenance mode so I suspect that 2.5.0 would be the target version.
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was thinking of picking up https://issues.apache.org/jira
>>> /browse/GROOVY-1200
>>>
>>> "include appropriate JSP 2.0/EL implicit variables in Groovlets"
>>>
>>> Besides the fix, I will also write the test case and update docs.
>>>
>>> Would this be something you would consider for 2.4.12 or a later release?
>>>
>>> Please suggest. Thank you.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Yazad
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Raising my hand
Posted by Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com>.
Thank you Paul, I can take up reviewing and provide you with the difference
if any between the current JSP spec and the current implementation in
GroovyServlet. Would you prefer me providing the diff on the mail list or
would you rather have me document that on the ticket?
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Yazad
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:09 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Yazad,
>
> We are always keen to see progress being made on the code base.
> GROOVY-1200 looks a little old and I wonder whether some of the
> functionality is already in place. I left a comment on the issue suggesting
> we review what was being asked for in that issue and what is currently
> supported. If there are still gaps in what is currently supported or
> non-conflicting improvements we can make to better support JSP to GSP
> translation, then we'd be keen for work on those to be made. The 2.4 stream
> is in maintenance mode so I suspect that 2.5.0 would be the target version.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was thinking of picking up
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-1200
>>
>> "include appropriate JSP 2.0/EL implicit variables in Groovlets"
>>
>> Besides the fix, I will also write the test case and update docs.
>>
>> Would this be something you would consider for 2.4.12 or a later release?
>>
>> Please suggest. Thank you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Yazad
>>
>
>
Re: Raising my hand
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
Hi Yazad,
We are always keen to see progress being made on the code base. GROOVY-1200
looks a little old and I wonder whether some of the functionality is
already in place. I left a comment on the issue suggesting we review what
was being asked for in that issue and what is currently supported. If there
are still gaps in what is currently supported or non-conflicting
improvements we can make to better support JSP to GSP translation, then
we'd be keen for work on those to be made. The 2.4 stream is in maintenance
mode so I suspect that 2.5.0 would be the target version.
Cheers, Paul.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Yazad Khambata <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking of picking up https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/GROOVY-1200
>
> "include appropriate JSP 2.0/EL implicit variables in Groovlets"
>
> Besides the fix, I will also write the test case and update docs.
>
> Would this be something you would consider for 2.4.12 or a later release?
>
> Please suggest. Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Yazad
>