-Original Message-
From: Marc Portier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dienstag, 1. Juli 2003 07:37
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [woody] binding the forms to data
...
The actual binding definition file could be filled with:
bnd:field id=widget-name
path=xpath
-Original Message-
From: Marc Portier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dienstag, 1. Juli 2003 09:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [woody] binding the forms to data
...
A general load/save binding specification in XML can get pretty
nasty for real-world examples with one-to-many
Yes, it's only recompiling - nothing more (well, at least in
theory :) )
Carsten
For non-trivial Cocoon sites the 2.0.x to 2.1 migration will require
more than just recompiling component classes.
There are incompatibilities on different levels. The ones I am aware of
are:
1.)
Jeff Turner wrote:
Hi,
The current sitemap is available through cocoon:/foo
Root sitemap is available through cocoon://foo
How about making parent sitemaps available through cocoon:../foo,
cocoon:../../foo, etc?
I suggest that the syntax should be cocoon:/../foo, cocoon:/../../foo,
etc.
-Original Message-
From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Freitag, 7. März 2003 18:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Coding style question: backwards null checks
if ( something.equals(stringToCompare) {
...
}
IMO it seems more
Same as above, I called it cocoon-2.1...
So where are the commits towards version 2.2 going once 2.1 is released?
I find these CVS imports from scratch very disruptive and should not be
repeated for every major release. Backporting stuff to another CVS
branch
is already hard enough, that
-Original Message-
From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Montag, 10. Februar 2003 19:04
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WSProxyGenerator
...
So, literally, for me an article is that XML document found at
http://backend/article?id=xyz
This is what concerns _me_. The
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Gallardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Montag, 3. Februar 2003 12:10
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: software licensing - security.
I think sometimes is good to restrict the access of the users. I got a
recently requirement for a customer (for
-Original Message-
From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Geoff Howard wrote:
I've been working on a quick patch to provide a third autosave-uploads
option. Currently true results in a permanent file
(FilePartFile) being
created in the upload-dir. false results in a
Folks, hold it. Aren' you missing the OO bit here.
Just use FilePart and the autosave-uploads setting doesn't matter.
These are the helper methods I'm using with HEAD:
/**
* For upload request parameters, return the InputStream from where
* to read the data.
* Returns
AFAIK, internal redirect is only implemented for the interpreted sitemap
(treeprocessor),
and 2.0.x uses the compiled sitemap by default.
From http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/changes.html for 2.0.3:
Handle request forwarding (aka internal redirects) using the
cocoon: pseudo-protocol :
-Original Message-
From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2002 18:27
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: file upload follow up
There are patches in the queue that bring a basic
level of flexibility and security (of a sort) to
multipart file upload
We have written a basic JFreeSerializer. Just enough functionality for
producing time series charts in png from datapoints sent down the
pipeline from an XSP generator.
Cheers, Alfred.
-Original Message-
From: Hugo Burm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2002 09:13
We have written a basic JFreeSerializer. Just enough
functionality for
producing time series charts in png from datapoints sent down the
pipeline from an XSP generator.
...mind to contribute it as new block? :-)
Sure, if there is interest for it.
But it will take me some time to figure
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Montag, 14. Oktober 2002 14:13
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] aren't u approaching the threshold of overcomplexity?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently I realized that I can't understand significant
Hi folks,
after posting to Bugzilla I have a few more thoughts about this issue.
We are looking here at the darker parts of the HTTP protocol
specification. File uploading was introduced experimentally
in 1995 (RFC1867) and formalized with HTML 4.0 in 1998 (RFC2388).
As the feature was
-Original Message-
From: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Montag, 14. Oktober 2002 17:40
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOLUNTEER] Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13541] New: -
SAVE_UPLOAD_FILES_TO_DISK should be configurable
From: Nathaniel Alfred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
17 matches
Mail list logo
