On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 10:30 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
Sheesh! :)
So make the framework set parameters from the action element too!
Look at Ant's DynamicConfigurator interface for inspiration ;)
See, but there's the problem I had with WW1.x... You had configuration
constructs for
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
See, but there's the problem I had with WW1.x... You had
configuration
constructs for Commands, but the whole CommandDriven stuff was
implemented in ActionSupport. This needs to be core in
configuration,
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 11:14 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
Ok, so this is how you turn off validation when coming into a
page, but
turn it on when coming out?
Exactly. You can apply validators at the alias level or at the Action
class level (based on the validator file name). The alias level
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could you share an example of using an alias in this manner to
kick-start me some here?
I'm not sure how detailed you want, but...
Lets say you have an Action named EditFooAction.java.
You could have an
, Jason Carreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Well, I'm glad to hear it But now you're making me work... See
below...
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OS-webwork] WebWork2
... ;-)
Raible
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
We're just glad to have
Jason Carreira wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
A few other questions about WebWork:
- Is the Action interface going away? Mike axed it over the
weekend, locally, but what's the verdict?
Yep, I think that's pretty likely, but it's
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Eden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the Action interface is removed then will execute() be the default
command method? What is the reason for removing the Action
interface?
I believe I understand that it is no longer needed, but does
it
public void testSuccessfulLogin() throws Exception {
parameters.put(username, new String[]{savaki});
parameters.put(password, new String[]{password});
ActionProxy proxy = ActionProxyFactory.getFactory().
createActionProxy(/member, login, extraContext, false);
String result =
Jason Carreira wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Eden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
On a side note, does anyone else notice that the use of
dynamic proxies
is leading to code which acts more like dynamic typed
languages such as
Python?
Sincerely,
Anthony Eden
No...
AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I agree completely. All this 'just define it/figure it out at runtime'
stuff really bothers me. Interfaces might be very 'old school' now, but
they are useful, just so you know at compile time what contracts your
components/classes/whatever
Even me, Mr. eXtreme XDoclet, has reservations about generating the
-validation.xml files if you are serving up your model directly from
your actions. Although, since the validation is completely decoupled
from the web (and this is no difference in Struts), perhaps it does
make sense.
The
It is an implementation of the Proxy Pattern, but it's not dynamic
proxies. It uses reflection.
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Eden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No... Because they're strongly typed. But we're not using dynamic
proxies here...
How do you mean you're not using
]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
Even me, Mr. eXtreme XDoclet, has reservations about generating the
-validation.xml files if you are serving up your model directly from
your actions. Although, since the validation is completely decoupled
from the web
, to
needlessly tie Actions to Xwork, when they can really just be POJO's
with no-arg methods returning a String.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
This is a concern that Mike expressed as well, but I challenged him to
look at the code and see if it really makes sense
If you pass false as the last argument to createActionProxy, it won't
call the Result so you can save yourself to MockResult :)
M
Ara Abrahamian wrote:
public void testSuccessfulLogin() throws Exception {
parameters.put(username, new String[]{savaki});
parameters.put(password, new
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
But it doesn't HAVE to have an execute() method! Well, with the
interface it does, but you don't have to USE it because you can specify
the method to be called... Which
Pat Lightbody wrote:
While I'm not sure that the ActionProxy stuff is heading in that direction,
believe me when I say I also don't think that getting rid of interfaces is a
great thing. Pico is doing that (it calls start() and stop() using
reflection rather than Startable and Stopable).
-
From: Pat Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I don't agree, and I haven't looked at CVS lately, but if the
Action interface is gone I'd like for it to be put back so
that we can
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
This is a concern that Mike expressed as well, but I challenged him to
look at the code and see if it really makes sense. He looked, and
grudgingly agreed that it made sense
] Behalf Of
Jason Carreira
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
But it doesn't HAVE to have an execute() method! Well, with the
interface it does, but you don't have to USE it because you can specify
the method to be called
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
I find it very useful to have multiple entry points to one Action, so
you don't have to have a proliferation of Action classes and they can
share common properties and validations... If you don't have this, you
end up with people
on their actions, but I
want the ability to use it to keep from having a proliferation of Action
classes.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 04:29 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
This is how WW1.x command driven actions are implemented. What I don't
like about this implementation is that anyone who know a little bit
about how WW works can twiddle with URLs to call other methods. Maybe
not a huge risk, but just
, 2003 4:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
So you're saying that setting a parameter via the URL and setting a
parameter via the xwork configuration file call the same
methods. This
sounds like a potential security hole for unsuspecting
.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I agree completely. All this 'just define it/figure it out at
runtime'
stuff really bothers me
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 04:29 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
This is how WW1.x command driven actions are implemented.
What I don't
like about
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
I find it very useful to have multiple entry points to one
Action, so
you don't have to have a proliferation of Action classes
and they can
share common properties
Amen brother!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
IMHO this is just over complicating things.
Regardless of the _removal_
, 2003 4:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
So you're saying that setting a parameter via the URL and setting a
parameter via the xwork configuration file call the same
methods. This
sounds like a potential security hole for unsuspecting developers
Or, you could apply the StaticParamInterceptor before ModelDriven and
again after ParamInterceptor...
-Original Message-
From: Jason Carreira
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
The ModelDrivenInterceptor
!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
IMHO this is just over complicating things.
Regardless of the _removal_ of Action, I'm for removing
]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
So you're saying that setting a parameter via the URL and
setting a
parameter via the xwork configuration file call the same
methods.
This sounds like a potential security hole for unsuspecting
developers.
FWIW, JPublish allows you
?
- Brock
// Make the simple things easy and the hard things possible.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I think what would be really useful for the discussion
wrote:
Amen brother!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
IMHO this is just over complicating things.
Regardless of the _removal_
.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I think what would be really useful for the discussion are some concrete
examples of pojos that would make use
Of
Jason Carreira
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
Amen brother!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
Uhm - just FYI the result types are currently in Action interface, so
anything that implements it gets those :)
M
On 3/7/03 8:47 AM, Brock Bulger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Here are my
Well, there are tonnes of use cases for this (you are talking about
commands right?)
The most commonly quoted one is a CRUD action. You create different
methods like doCreate(), doUpdate() and have the same fields (ie name,
email etc).
Ha! I've definitely spent too much time with Struts :)
Matt Ho wrote:
Well, there are tonnes of use cases for this (you are talking about
commands right?)
The most commonly quoted one is a CRUD action. You create different
methods like doCreate(), doUpdate() and have the same fields (ie name,
email etc).
Ha! I've definitely spent too
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 06:56 PM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Well, there are tonnes of use cases for this (you are talking about
commands
right?)
The most commonly quoted one is a CRUD action. You create different
methods
like doCreate(), doUpdate() and have the same fields (ie name,
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 05:12 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
Well, the drawback is that now you need a hack interceptor to intercept
attempts to misuse the dispatch action... Plus, the DispatchAction
feels
very... Struts :-)
Uh damn did you look at @author tags in the Struts codebase
- ModelDriven - Parameters (which calls getModel())
-Original Message-
From: Matt Ho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
That just seems wrong :)
Jason Carreira wrote:
Or, you could
though.. I like more descriptive names.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 06:56 PM, Mike Cannon
Apologies for my Australian-ism - but your subclass structure is bullshit :)
Why do that? It's far too complex. Just have doCreate(), doRead() etc and
use the code as is. This is exactly what it was designed for?
And as for your analysis of AS - exactly correct, except for the interceptor
bit.
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 05:12 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
Well, the drawback is that now you
names.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 06:56 PM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Well, there are tonnes
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Apologies for my Australian-ism - but your subclass structure is bullshit :)
Hahaha. Ok, I'll just keep it to myself then :)
Why do that? It's far too complex. Just have doCreate(), doRead() etc and
use the code as is. This is exactly what it was designed for?
This
I might have missed something. See below.
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 8:26 PM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
See below...
-Original Message-
From: Brock Bulger [mailto
Umm... We're not talking about changing the return type...
We're talking about removing the Action Interface.
b: If you remove the Action interface you have to do
something with the
getAction() method on the ActionProxy, right? My test cases
usually have to cast this object to
I just wanted to drop a note that I'm almost a switcher to WW2. I've
gotten my demo app that I use for all of my Ant, XDoclet, Lucene, and
Struts presentations working just fine in WW2. Thanks to all that
contributed to the wiki and sample app. where I learned enough to make
it work.
I'm on
Well, I'm glad to hear it But now you're making me work... See
below...
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I just wanted to drop a note
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
We're just glad to have you... Next we'll convert Matt Raible, then
we'll teach Craig McClanahan the error of his ways... LOL
All that'd be left to do after that is get him to drop the devil-spawn
abomination sometimes knows as JSF,
properties (I'm sure it does).
Erik has defected... damn... ;-)
Raible
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Jason
, July 01, 2003 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
If you can give me XDoclet generation of the validations (server-side +
client side) like Struts has, and provide Cactus integration like
StrutsTestCase, I might be interested. Of course, then I'll have to learn
SiteMesh
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
We're just glad to have you... Next we'll convert Matt Raible, then
we'll teach Craig McClanahan
: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
We're just glad to have you... Next we'll convert Matt Raible, then
we'll teach Craig McClanahan the error of his ways... LOL
All that'd
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
Well, I'm glad to hear it But now you're making me work... See
below...
You seemed far too relaxed at TSS... time to make you sweat! :)
- How do I get to my application context attributes? I
set some in
an initialization
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually I'd want something more elegant, like something like this:
public void setAppConfig(AppConfig config) { ... }
Where an AppConfig object is in application scope. Can this be done
with components.xml
Pat Lightbody wrote:
Indexed properties is supposed, XDoclet could be added but the
configuration is already damn easy without requiring XDoclet. Cactus
integration is trivial, but why not just mock it all?
I completely agree. WebWork doesn't require you to use something like
StrutsTestCase
61 matches
Mail list logo
