On 8/22/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd say it's more a matter of doing what it has always done rather than doing what others like it have done. What I mean is, adding this should have no effect on existing applications. I know it may seem confusing to someone comparing option and options side by side, but it's not nearly as bad as explaining why we would want to break the many 1000s of existing apps.
Thanks for the feedback, James - that is generally my default position as well. The patches currently attached to the JIRA issue are written to maintain 100% backwards compatibility (i.e. filter="false" default preserves previous behavior). Now I just need a volunteer with enough karma to review and apply the patch for 1.3.6. :-) Kind Regards, John Fallows. Hope that helps
-- James Mitchell 678.910.8017 On Aug 22, 2006, at 12:54 PM, John Fallows wrote: > Folks, > > Issue STR-2932 indicates that <html:option> needs a filter > attribute, much > like <html:options> and <html:optionsCollection>. > > https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2932 > > I've submitted patches for both html and html-el taglibs to add the > boolean > filter attribute, but a question remains on what the correct > default should > be, true or false. > > The purpose of sending this email is to gain consensus from the Struts > community on how the backwards compatibility policy should be > applied in > this case, so I can rework the patches if necessary. > > Kind Regards, > John Fallows. > -- > http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10044 > Author: Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components, Apress --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10044 Author: Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components, Apress
