Ok, the problem with init() not being called is fixed.
also, i changed VelocityView to not load the default tool configs when an old toolbox.xml is in use. this means that people using the old toolbox.xml can drop in the full jar (including VelocityStruts) and not have configuration exceptions thrown at them. as things stand, however, once they move to a tools.xml or tools.properties configuration and/or add the org.apache.velocity.tools.loadDefaults=true property to their web.xml init params, they will get a exception on startup if they are using the full VelocityStruts jar but do not have the Struts dependencies on the classpath. i did this for now, because it's easier. simply logging an error message when dependencies are missing (as opposed to throwing an exception) will actually be pretty difficult to pull off as things are currently organized. i'll continue to think about ways to do that or make it optional, but it's looking like quite the challenge at the moment. On 5/16/07, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/16/07, Claude Brisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le mercredi 16 mai 2007 à 19:50 -0700, Nathan Bubna a écrit : > > > On the next test I made, I ran into the first real problem, I think: the > > > init(Object) method seems to not be called at all on an old request > > > tool. If you've got an idea about this symptome, well "tant > > > mieux" (don't know the english equivalent...), otherwise I'll > > > investigate - it will make me more familiar with the new codebase :-) > > > > does the log description of the toolboxes say whether the tool in > > question is "Old" or not? > > Yes, "old" (which -just guessing, correct me if I'm wrong- is synonym to > the fact that it has a "void init(Object data)" method, the one we'd > like to see called). yeah, it means that we need to support init(Object). tools should be treated as "old" if they have an init(Object) method that is NOT deprecated. i'm glad it at least identified the tool as "old" correctly. now to make sure that init() gets called... > > i thought i had this case supported, but i could be wrong. i haven't > > tested it much yet. > > Somehow reassuring to see you leave a few bugs sometimes... heh. > Claude > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
