confused about OGNL

[Musachy Barroso]

We are using OGNL 2.6.11 from opensymphony. I have seen OGNL 2.7
mentioned in some places, like:
http://blog.opencomponentry.com/2008/02/01/ognl-272-released/. But I
don't see it in the maven repos or anywhere else. Is OGNL still under
development? where did this 2.7 version came from, or where is it
hosted?

regards
musachy

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

it is here: http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/ognl/ognl/2.7.2/

why aren't we using that version?

musahcy

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Musachy Barroso<musachy@...> wrote:

> We are using OGNL 2.6.11 from opensymphony. I have seen OGNL 2.7
> mentioned in some places, like:
> http://blog.opencomponentry.com/2008/02/01/ognl-272-released/. But I
> don't see it in the maven repos or anywhere else. Is OGNL still under
> development? where did this 2.7 version came from, or where is it
> hosted?
>
> regards
> musachy
>
> --
> "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[newton.dave]

Musachy Barroso wrote:
> it is here: http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/ognl/ognl/2.7.2/
>
> why aren't we using that version?

'Cuz nobody could find it ;)

Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

hehe..I will be testing with that version, so far 3 tests break on
xwork, they don't seem like a big deal and I like the new behavior
better (I will give more details later). I still need to run the
struts tests.

musachy

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dave Newton<newton.dave@...> wrote:

> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> it is here: http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/ognl/ognl/2.7.2/
>>
>> why aren't we using that version?
>
> 'Cuz nobody could find it ;)
>
> Dave
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

the struts tests run fine. The 3 tests failing in xwork are related to
setter/getters to having the same type, so given a class:

class IAmHungryWhatTimeIsIt {
     private int number;

     public int getNumber() {}
     public void setNumber(String number) {}
}

so in OGNL 2.6.x if we try to set "obj.number" to 10, it will fail
because it uses PropertyDescriptor(s) to find "number" and it fails to
do so. In OGNL 2.7.x it succeeds because it finds the setter method,
without using PropertyDescriptor.

OGNL 2.7 can compile expressions into java code which gives a very
nice performance boost, so I am big +1 for upgrading. I am trying to
figure if the changes in 2.6 mate it into 2.7 or not.

musachy

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Musachy Barroso<musachy@...> wrote:

> hehe..I will be testing with that version, so far 3 tests break on
> xwork, they don't seem like a big deal and I like the new behavior
> better (I will give more details later). I still need to run the
> struts tests.
>
> musachy
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dave Newton<newton.dave@...> wrote:
>> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>>
>>> it is here: http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/ognl/ognl/2.7.2/
>>>
>>> why aren't we using that version?
>>
>> 'Cuz nobody could find it ;)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[DNewfield]

Musachy Barroso wrote:
> OGNL 2.7 can compile expressions into java code which gives a very
> nice performance boost, so I am big +1 for upgrading. I am trying to
> figure if the changes in 2.6 mate it into 2.7 or not.

alias svndiff='svn diff --diff-cmd /usr/bin/diff --extensions "-u -b -B -w"'

svndiff http://svn.opensymphony.com/svn/ognl/tags/ognl_2-6-10 
http://svn.opensymphony.com/svn/ognl/tags/ognl_2-6-11 | less

I believe that this shows a single semantic change to a .java file, and
I believe that the contents of the block that had "synchronized
(method)" added around it in the 2.6.10 -> 2.6.11 transition also is
synchronized the same way in 2.7.2.

This is not a comprehensive comparison, but it appears to indicate that
the answer to your question might be "yes".

-Dale

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

neat. the sync changes are also in 2.7, a little bit different but it
is the same I think.

musachy

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Dale Newfield<dale@...> wrote:

> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> OGNL 2.7 can compile expressions into java code which gives a very
>> nice performance boost, so I am big +1 for upgrading. I am trying to
>> figure if the changes in 2.6 mate it into 2.7 or not.
>
> alias svndiff='svn diff --diff-cmd /usr/bin/diff --extensions "-u -b -B -w"'
>
> svndiff http://svn.opensymphony.com/svn/ognl/tags/ognl_2-6-10
> http://svn.opensymphony.com/svn/ognl/tags/ognl_2-6-11 | less
>
> I believe that this shows a single semantic change to a .java file, and I
> believe that the contents of the block that had "synchronized (method)"
> added around it in the 2.6.10 -> 2.6.11 transition also is synchronized the
> same way in 2.7.2.
>
> This is not a comprehensive comparison, but it appears to indicate that the
> answer to your question might be "yes".
>
> -Dale
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

I did some more checking and it looks good. I would say after 2.1.8
gets released, we create the 2.1 branch and start working on 2.2,
which would use OGNL 2.7, how does that sound?

musachy

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Musachy Barroso<musachy@...> wrote:

> neat. the sync changes are also in 2.7, a little bit different but it
> is the same I think.
>
> musachy
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Dale Newfield<dale@...> wrote:
>> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>>
>>> OGNL 2.7 can compile expressions into java code which gives a very
>>> nice performance boost, so I am big +1 for upgrading. I am trying to
>>> figure if the changes in 2.6 mate it into 2.7 or not.
>>
>> alias svndiff='svn diff --diff-cmd /usr/bin/diff --extensions "-u -b -B -w"'
>>
>> svndiff http://svn.opensymphony.com/svn/ognl/tags/ognl_2-6-10
>> http://svn.opensymphony.com/svn/ognl/tags/ognl_2-6-11 | less
>>
>> I believe that this shows a single semantic change to a .java file, and I
>> believe that the contents of the block that had "synchronized (method)"
>> added around it in the 2.6.10 -> 2.6.11 transition also is synchronized the
>> same way in 2.7.2.
>>
>> This is not a comprehensive comparison, but it appears to indicate that the
>> answer to your question might be "yes".
>>
>> -Dale
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[DNewfield]

Musachy Barroso wrote:
> I did some more checking and it looks good. I would say after 2.1.8
> gets released, we create the 2.1 branch and start working on 2.2,
> which would use OGNL 2.7, how does that sound?

I'm gonna start using 2.7(.3) now.  I think I had reverted from 2.7 to
2.6 as a result of this exchange:
http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-with-Struts2-td18092204.html .

I thought we were already updating lots of other dependencies for 2.1.8?

I understand that there might be code changes in struts that would allow
us to benefit from some of the speedups in 2.7 (which would best go into
2.2), but if it neither breaks anything nor slows anything down with
just a jar change, any reason to wait?  (Your caching issue is one, but
adding that doNotCache flag seems like a reasonable workaround for now...)

-Dale

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.

musachy

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Dale Newfield<dale@...> wrote:

> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> I did some more checking and it looks good. I would say after 2.1.8
>> gets released, we create the 2.1 branch and start working on 2.2,
>> which would use OGNL 2.7, how does that sound?
>
> I'm gonna start using 2.7(.3) now.  I think I had reverted from 2.7 to 2.6
> as a result of this exchange:
> http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-with-Struts2-td18092204.html .
>
> I thought we were already updating lots of other dependencies for 2.1.8?
>
> I understand that there might be code changes in struts that would allow us
> to benefit from some of the speedups in 2.7 (which would best go into 2.2),
> but if it neither breaks anything nor slows anything down with just a jar
> change, any reason to wait?  (Your caching issue is one, but adding that
> doNotCache flag seems like a reasonable workaround for now...)
>
> -Dale
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

2.7 parsing works fine as a drop in replacement, but the bytecode
compilation does not work out of the box. After enabling it I got a
lot of tests failing.

musachy

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Musachy Barroso<musachy@...> wrote:

> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
> wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.
>
> musachy
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Dale Newfield<dale@...> wrote:
>> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>>
>>> I did some more checking and it looks good. I would say after 2.1.8
>>> gets released, we create the 2.1 branch and start working on 2.2,
>>> which would use OGNL 2.7, how does that sound?
>>
>> I'm gonna start using 2.7(.3) now.  I think I had reverted from 2.7 to 2.6
>> as a result of this exchange:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-with-Struts2-td18092204.html .
>>
>> I thought we were already updating lots of other dependencies for 2.1.8?
>>
>> I understand that there might be code changes in struts that would allow us
>> to benefit from some of the speedups in 2.7 (which would best go into 2.2),
>> but if it neither breaks anything nor slows anything down with just a jar
>> change, any reason to wait?  (Your caching issue is one, but adding that
>> doNotCache flag seems like a reasonable workaround for now...)
>>
>> -Dale
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[andreak]

On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:14:00 am Musachy Barroso wrote:
> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
> wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.

FWIW; Any performance-improvements to OGNL are welcome, so I'm all for including 2.7.x in 2.1.8, even if it means delaying the release some to allow testing.

--
Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak@...>
Senior Software Developer / CTO
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
OfficeNet AS            | The most difficult thing in the world is to |
Rosenholmveien 25       | know how to do a thing and to watch         |
1414 Trollåsen          | somebody else doing it wrong, without       |
NORWAY                  | comment.                                    |
                        |                                             |
Tlf:    [phone] |                                             |
Fax:    [phone] |                                             |
Mobile: [phone] |                                             |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Wes Wannemacher]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Andreas Joseph
Krogh<andreak@...> wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:14:00 am Musachy Barroso wrote:
>> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
>> wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.
>
> FWIW; Any performance-improvements to OGNL are welcome, so I'm all for including 2.7.x in 2.1.8, even if it means delaying the release some to allow testing.
>

Although I agree with your sentiment (OGNL performance improvements
are needed), I disagree that we should postpone 2.1.8, 2.1.7 didn't
pass because I missed a detail, but from 2.1.6 to now, we are sitting
on a ton of closed JIRA issues. As soon as Rainer is able to get us
xwork 2.1.5, I am going to get 2.1.8 out. I think we should work on
getting OGNL out as soon as possible, but I don't want to delay 2.1.8
to get it... Thoughts?

-Wes

--
Wes Wannemacher
Author - Struts 2 In Practice
Includes coverage of Struts 2.1, Spring, JPA, JQuery, Sitemesh and more
http://www.manning.com/wannemacher

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[andreak]

On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:09:08 pm Wes Wannemacher wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Andreas Joseph
> Krogh<andreak@...> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 June 2009 03:14:00 am Musachy Barroso wrote:
> >> 2.7 has been out for a while, so it should not be *that* risky, but I
> >> wouldn't include it in 2.1.8 with such a short notice and no testing.
> >
> > FWIW; Any performance-improvements to OGNL are welcome, so I'm all for including 2.7.x in 2.1.8, even if it means delaying the release some to allow testing.
> >
>
> Although I agree with your sentiment (OGNL performance improvements
> are needed), I disagree that we should postpone 2.1.8, 2.1.7 didn't
> pass because I missed a detail, but from 2.1.6 to now, we are sitting
> on a ton of closed JIRA issues. As soon as Rainer is able to get us
> xwork 2.1.5, I am going to get 2.1.8 out. I think we should work on
> getting OGNL out as soon as possible, but I don't want to delay 2.1.8
> to get it... Thoughts?

I was maybe a little too precise in pointing out 2.1.8, but what I'd like to see is an updated OGNL *before* 2.2 is released, in 2.1.9+ or so.
Releasing 2.1.8 as soon as xwork-2.1.5 is out seems very reasonable.

--
Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak@...>
Senior Software Developer / CTO
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
OfficeNet AS            | The most difficult thing in the world is to |
Rosenholmveien 25       | know how to do a thing and to watch         |
1414 Trollåsen          | somebody else doing it wrong, without       |
NORWAY                  | comment.                                    |
                        |                                             |
Tlf:    [phone] |                                             |
Fax:    [phone] |                                             |
Mobile: [phone] |                                             |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Joseph
Krogh<andreak@...> wrote:
> was maybe a little too precise in pointing out 2.1.8, but what I'd like to see is an updated OGNL *before* 2.2 is released, in 2.1.9+ or so.
> Releasing 2.1.8 as soon as xwork-2.1.5 is out seems very reasonable.
>

Yeah, this I could agree with, if we get some volunteers to help testing.

musachy
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Wes Wannemacher]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Musachy Barroso<musachy@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Joseph
> Krogh<andreak@...> wrote:
>> was maybe a little too precise in pointing out 2.1.8, but what I'd like to see is an updated OGNL *before* 2.2 is released, in 2.1.9+ or so.
>> Releasing 2.1.8 as soon as xwork-2.1.5 is out seems very reasonable.
>>
>
> Yeah, this I could agree with, if we get some volunteers to help testing.

+1 here as well.

Andreas, we're on the same page then, I just hate postponing what is
sitting in SVN right now. But after we get the current batch of
bugfixes out (2.1.8 hopefully can get through to GA), then I'm up for
getting to OGNL 2.7.

-Wes

--
Wes Wannemacher
Author - Struts 2 In Practice
Includes coverage of Struts 2.1, Spring, JPA, JQuery, Sitemesh and more
http://www.manning.com/wannemacher

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[andreak]

On Tuesday 30 June 2009 04:47:22 pm Wes Wannemacher wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Musachy Barroso<musachy@...> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Joseph
> > Krogh<andreak@...> wrote:
> >> was maybe a little too precise in pointing out 2.1.8, but what I'd like to see is an updated OGNL *before* 2.2 is released, in 2.1.9+ or so.
> >> Releasing 2.1.8 as soon as xwork-2.1.5 is out seems very reasonable.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, this I could agree with, if we get some volunteers to help testing.
>
> +1 here as well.
>
> Andreas, we're on the same page then, I just hate postponing what is
> sitting in SVN right now. But after we get the current batch of
> bugfixes out (2.1.8 hopefully can get through to GA), then I'm up for
> getting to OGNL 2.7.

Very good!

--
Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak@...>
Senior Software Developer / CTO
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
OfficeNet AS            | The most difficult thing in the world is to |
Rosenholmveien 25       | know how to do a thing and to watch         |
1414 Trollåsen          | somebody else doing it wrong, without       |
NORWAY                  | comment.                                    |
                        |                                             |
Tlf:    [phone] |                                             |
Fax:    [phone] |                                             |
Mobile: [phone] |                                             |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

It seems like we wont be able to use the new OGNL byte code, as we
will end up using reflection in most cases anyway. The first problem
is the value stack, given and expression "A.B", it is always evaluated
as "Root.A.B" where Root is the CompundRoot. That would be translated
into root.getA().getB(), the problem is that root is a wrapper of a
list of objects, so we never know the type of getA() which makes it
impossible to compile it into byte code.

Enter the hack: I managed to get the compilation nodes from OGNL, so I
would use reflection to get X=Root.A, and then generate the bytecode
for X.B, this kinda works but defeats the whole purpose as the
expressions could not be cached properly, so it is useless.

Even if we use the hack described above, expressions like A[C].B would
need to use reflection as the type of A[C] cannot be determined (if
you thought: use the hack again on A[C], go ahead and smack yourself
around a bit :) )

so we are out of luck on this, until invokedynamic is supported by the
jvm(http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=292) (good article:
http://blog.headius.com/2008/09/first-taste-of-invokedynamic.html)

musachy
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[DNewfield]

Musachy Barroso wrote:
> It seems like we wont be able to use the new OGNL byte code

Oh, well.

I think it's been too long since you've received public kudos, Musachy,
for all the work you've put in of late to support the struts community:

Musachy++!

-Dale

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Musachy Barroso]

:)

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Dale Newfield<dale@...> wrote:

> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> It seems like we wont be able to use the new OGNL byte code
>
> Oh, well.
>
> I think it's been too long since you've received public kudos, Musachy, for
> all the work you've put in of late to support the struts community:
>
> Musachy++!
>
> -Dale
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...