You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2013/10/10 16:48:33 UTC
[Bug 55249] JspC compiles tag files even if compile options is false
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> ---
I took a look at this but the assumption that tag files are compiled runs
through a considerable portion of the Jasper code. I started to try and
untangle it and got so far (the compilation step, the dependencies) but
building the TagHandlerInfo from source is non-trivial. It could be done but I
am not convinced it is worth doing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: LATER vs WONTFIX, was: [Bug 55249] JspC compiles tag files even
if compile options is false
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/10/2013 21:41, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2013 20:40, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
>>>>
>>>> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> changed:
>>>>
>>>> What |Removed |Added
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
>>>> Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
>>>
>>> Is LATER a better status for this? I was planning to look in to
>>> this at some point, it's just work has kept me busy the last
>>> few weeks.
>>
>> Obtaining the information required via a route other than
>> compilation is likely to be more expensive that the compilation
>> step. I doubt any patch is worth the effort so WONTFIX seems
>> appropriate. It doesn't prevent a fix at a later date.
>
> This was more for my thinking on Bugzilla status. I think of
> WONTFIX as being "we will never do this because of technical reason
> X so a patch is unlikely to be applied"
Which is where I think we are on this one. Having looked into it, I
viable patch that isn't hugely more complex and expensive than what we
have seems very unlikely.
> vs. LATER being "we have no plans to do this but would consider a
> patch."
Those just tend to get left as open enhancement requests. We don't
really use the LATER status at all.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
LATER vs WONTFIX, was: [Bug 55249] JspC compiles tag files even if compile options is false
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Oct 10, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 20:40, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
>>>
>>> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> changed:
>>>
>>> What |Removed |Added
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
> Status|NEW |RESOLVED
>>> Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
>>
>> Is LATER a better status for this? I was planning to look in to
>> this at some point, it's just work has kept me busy the last few
>> weeks.
>
> Obtaining the information required via a route other than compilation
> is likely to be more expensive that the compilation step. I doubt any
> patch is worth the effort so WONTFIX seems appropriate. It doesn't
> prevent a fix at a later date.
This was more for my thinking on Bugzilla status. I think of WONTFIX as being "we will never do this because of technical reason X so a patch is unlikely to be applied" vs. LATER being "we have no plans to do this but would consider a patch."
Cheers
Jeremy
Re: [Bug 55249] JspC compiles tag files even if compile options is
false
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/10/2013 20:40, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
>>
>> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> changed:
>>
>> What |Removed |Added
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
>> Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
>
> Is LATER a better status for this? I was planning to look in to
> this at some point, it's just work has kept me busy the last few
> weeks.
Obtaining the information required via a route other than compilation
is likely to be more expensive that the compilation step. I doubt any
patch is worth the effort so WONTFIX seems appropriate. It doesn't
prevent a fix at a later date.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [Bug 55249] JspC compiles tag files even if compile options is false
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
>
> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status|NEW |RESOLVED
> Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Is LATER a better status for this? I was planning to look in to this at some point, it's just work has kept me busy the last few weeks.
Thanks
Jeremy