struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rene Gielen <>
Subject Re: SMI on steroids Feature Request
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:13:09 GMT
Greg is a Struts committer and as such completely free to implement and
commit on features or bugs, with or without PR. Given that, I think Greg
is pretty well aware how things are run.

Just in case this needs clarification, I'll put this straight with my
"manager" (aka PMC member) hat on:
What goes into releases is subject to silent consensus or explicit
consensus if discussion is needed or wanted. While the PMC members have
the final word in non-trivial or controversial decisions, all
participants on the dev-list or user-list are heard and have the power
to express their opinions and thus influence actual decisions.

The depicted decision flow is incorrect in that we don't have one, two
or whatever number of folks here that "filter" requests and then pass it
to be voted upon. We rarely vote on features anyway. We prefer simple
discussions among all people feeling involved, with hopefully valuable

The sole purpose of this thread is to clarify on future directions of
SMI/DMI. I have no clue what kind of working patch, as suggested, would
help here. As for making the case for users and user impact as well as
why something is useful, this is the *essence* of this thread and the
referenced ticket and this is exactly what is being discussed here.

- René

Am 12.02.16 um 14:45 schrieb Martin Gainty:
> Hi Greg
> since barosso got a FT job at Amazon the Struts managers that call the shots on new Struts
features are Lukasz and Dave
> If they say this is a good idea that should be voted on and then implemented then perhaps
our feature might be implemented
> My suggestions is to lay out the groundwork for the new feature that is:
> Make the case that users like yourself would find this new feature useful
> If possible submit a working patch to latest codebase and a testcase demonstrating the
viability of this new feature
> As you probably have guessed already i am not a this is not my call
> Good Luck Greg!
> Martin 
> ______________________________________________ 
>> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:02:41 +0000
>> Subject: Re: SMI on steroids
>> From:
>> To:
>> Can there be two levels on the SMI?
>> If DMI is on and SMI is in relaxed-strict mode (false) we can leave the
>> {1} and prefix{0}suffix in so it works.
>> although it would be better to have some kind of regex ie
>> regex:([A-Z-a-z]*) for safety plus a max length!
>> Then if SMI is in strict mode (true) remove {1} and prefix{0}suffix so it
>> will then fall back on the global/allowed-methods.
>> Just a thought.
>> Cheers Greg
>> On 5 February 2016 at 09:23, Lukasz Lenart <> wrote:
>>> 2016-02-05 10:20 GMT+01:00 Greg Huber <>:
>>>> my lastest comment..
>>>> The entry that we don't want is {1} style
>>>> PatternAllowedMethod{allowedMethodPattern=(.*), original='\{1\}'\}
>>>> which is don't check anything, effectively disabling SMI.
>>>> run{1}This style could be left in, as they are pretty restrictive, or is
>>>> there a regex for the pattern that could be added to the globals,
>>>> acknowledging there is a potential risk in your DMI?
>>> Yes, that true, but this approach is very strict and can affect many
>>> users/projects. I would like to hear other's opinion
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Łukasz
>>> + 48 606 323 122
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:

René Gielen

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message