All,
Effective immediately I resigning from the WebWork project and
OpenSymphony. This means that I won't be participating in the upcoming
1.3 release or subsequent efforts.
Thanks,
Maurice
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn
LOL. Maybe it's because I had a couple of beers this evening, but your
-1 just made me laugh my ass off.
Thanks for the nice words. And keep going on your great start with the
docs!
-Maurice
On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 09:29 PM, Toby Hede wrote:
-1
I for one think this is sad news.
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 12:10 AM, Heng Sin Low wrote:
Currently, there are many place in Webwork (
especially BeanUtil ) throw IllegalArgumentException
that hide the original exception, this make it much
tougher to debug. Any plan improvement/idea for this ?
I noticed this too. One
I am -1 on any further changes to the behavior of the PropertyTag
(after the id attribute change) and any new tags that duplicate the
functionality of the PropertyTag. These reasons have been explained ad
nauseam on this list. If you are unfamiliar with the argument, please
search the
'
ww:param name=date value='illegal' /
ww:property value=formattedDate /
/ww:bean
This shows no errors (to the user or the server side logs) and prints
out
the current date.
--Erik
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Maurice C. Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 08:38 PM, Erik Beeson wrote:
http
Gavin,
I recommend that you try the filter approach. You could solve your
transaction boundary problem for all your Hibernate users doing webapps
at once. Someone could be doing something as primitive as a
servlet+jsp w/ scriptlets and you would still have them covered. I'm
not sure, but
For those who haven't read the Jira comments I posted about this bug, I
have inlined them here:
I agree that the Property tag shouldn't print when the id attibute is
present. It would be uncommon that a person would both want to print
the selected value and
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 03:47 AM, Erik Beeson wrote:
One of two things NEEDS to happen here. Either property tag NEEDS to be
broken up, before 1.3. OR one of you people who is set on not breaking
it
up needs to document the beegeebers out of it, put your money where
your
mouth is
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 04:09 PM, Hani Suleiman wrote:
Actually, while I've pretty much agreed with Maurice on every single
point he's
made, this is one case where I agree that ui:hidden and ui:submit
would make
sense.
Hey, just because Patrick wrote it doesn't mean I disagree
Patrick,
Let me start by saying that I *do* respect your opinions. You are a
bright and energetic developer and we would be poorer if you left the
project.
As to the configuration code, I stand by all my technical arguments.
We came to an agreement and I'm holding you to it.
All,
I think we need to put together a 1.3 release sometime within the next
month or so. The focus of the next release needs to be quality above
all else. The 1.2.x releases were very poor and there are people
needing bugfixes for problems introduced with them.
To move us toward a higher
Guys,
Adding more junk to the Actions.xml is a sure way fire way to make
using WebWork more difficult. Do a comparison of our mapping file and
Struts and you will see what I'm talking about.
Jason, we've been over this repeatedly. People on the list have given
you many helpful suggestions
Mike, this stuffs awesome. Excellent work.
I had a conversation with a coworker today about learning to use
WebWork. He is extremely excited about how quickly and easily he can
develop apps using SiteMesh+WebWork. He got up to speed using both in
a very short period of time. The problem
13 matches
Mail list logo
