The point of the vote is to document them and lay a foundation for people to decide on. There is no point in it when you still have to go through a 28-message thread to find out what's actually being proposed and voted on.
Uli On 07.02.2013 10:08, Massimo Lusetti wrote: > They are discussed in the thread I've linked to. > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: > >> Can we please document the technical changes? >> >> On 07.02.2013 09:33, Massimo Lusetti wrote: >>> Recent discussions lead up to rise again an old issue in Tapestry list: >> How >>> the framework handle requests to non existing URL. >>> >>> Now the framework simply treat them as activation context even if the >> pages >>> does not have a activation context event handler method. >>> >>> Here is a request of vote to change this behavior in having the framework >>> return a 404 error when the pages does not have a event handler method >> and >>> the request comes with an activation context. >>> >>> Our latest discussion is here for you to read: >>> >> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-handle-404-nicely-TAP5-879-td5719588.html >>> >>> >>> Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding) >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
