Erik Beeson wrote:
Rickard, as I understood, XWork was to break away from J2EE, hence
removing web from the name. If new versions with strong web ties are
going to remain, shouldn't they remain under the original WebWork name?
That is something I wanted to gauge by my last couple of emails. I
What kind of real world example applications do you want? Wafer has a
working webwork example...
And docs? Who needs them - they're for people who aren't willing to roll
their sleeves up and dig directly into the code, right? (Note droll
humour.)
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Heng Sin Low wrote:
I
I think it might be beneficial to do both xwork and webwork as separate project
at this point of time. At least, people will spent less time debating at
mailing list and get things done. I guess there is no right or wrong here, it
is just that people have different preference and needs. For
Is anyone having success with the ww:include when the value is an
action? Sure it executes the action just fine, but I am not getting any
callbacks from the view to hit the ValueStack. Calling the action
directly, _does_ result in the action and page being executed correctly.
-Original
I have been following this list for quite some time with great interest. I really like
all the new ideas for XWork. I think it would be sad not to see those ideas become
implemented only because it would be difficult to keep it Swing compatible. If an
alternative is to break Webwork and XWork
I'm not sure I see the disconnect here. What's so different about Xwork? Views can
still be JSP / Velocity / XSLT which generates HTML. It's still a great framework for
web app development. If the ThreadLocal thing is the only sticking point, then lets
talk about that. I'm personally for the
It's not that it's difficult to keep it Swing compatible and it's not a choice of
loosing features. The new features, the biggest one being Interceptors, IMHO, are in
no way involved in this. This is really a question of cleaning up some (IMO) ugliness
in the original code that was put in to
Amen (great point abot JMS, btw)! This is _sandbox_, PLEASE everyone stop
making things so dramatic. All I'm doing is putting things in there for us
to discuss and toy with. Then we talk. That's the idea: Write, talk, write
some more. Not write, talk, abandon project ;)
-Pat
- Original
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:24 AM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
So, given all of this, my resignation from XWork still holds. The
requirements that have been voiced the last few days are not mine, and
I don't think they're compatible with my goals, at least not without
serious compromises
Only after the first try. I don't think slapping on oscache is the
solution, as it just hides the performance problem (of course, adding
oscache is always a good idea, but making that first hit faster would
also be a good idea)
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Mike Cannon-Brookes
The multiple thread thing is simple/trivial to solve using AOP. I'm not sure
this would cause any performance issue though.
--- Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not that it's difficult to keep it Swing compatible and it's not a
choice of loosing features. The new features, the
11 matches
Mail list logo
