Hi Murray,
there's also a jspwiki-http (IIRC) artifact which contains the csrf filter.
It's completely pluggable, so if you don't include it, everything will
continue same as before, it'll be safe to upgrade the jars.
However, if you do include it, both JSPs and js files should be upgraded
too (a
Hi,
please see attached draft for comments, edits, reviews, etc. My intention
is to submit the report by next Thursday/Friday.
Cheers,
juan pablo
-- Forwarded message -
De:
Date: mar, 9 ago 2022 14:40
Subject: [jspwiki-asf-docs] branch master updated: [DRAFT] 2022-08 Board
repo
Hiya,
Given there's no jspwiki code in that stack trace, my guess would be either
a jspwiki serialization file has been serialized with one jdk and it's been
tried to be deserialized with another, or something similar with the JSPs
under Tomcat's work directory?
Maybe clearing tomcat's and/or jsp
Hi all,
As noted some days ago, may be out is time to upgrade the jdk requirement?
Currently we're on jdk8, which is quite behind current LTS, and given the
new jdk release cycle, it'll be easy to be in this situation again, so a
couple of questions:
- should we upgrade? To which jdk? Other than
Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
Also, I do not see why a mature product like JSPWiki should be
refactored to use newer Java features.
Cheers,
Juergen
Am Di., 9. Aug. 2022 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez
:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As noted some days ago,
On 2022/08/09 22:55, Jürgen Weber wrote:
Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
Agreed, my current job is largely upgrading dozens and dozens of JDK 8
applications which have had no love for over a decade. I'm not so sure
if this is the result of being conservative so
Actually I never understood the need for get/setters anyway (course I know
the book). C++ got along well without.
Cheers
Murray Altheim schrieb am Di., 9. Aug. 2022, 16:12:
> On 2022/08/09 22:55, Jürgen Weber wrote:
> > Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
>
> Agree
