Jason Carreira wrote:
One question I had about these frameworks... Is it possible for me to
define a default configuration, and allow the users of the framework to
just selectively replace individual components, or would they have to
reconfigure the whole thing?
Thoughts? Ideas?
One design tha
remigijus wrote:
But got one more question. Why are you going to drop JBoss? I thought to
start using JBoss in my new projects.
Well, we're not using anything in JBoss that is not also available in
Tomcat, so what's the point of having it? It's just bloat. Chews up
memory, and the UCL system is..
Erik Jõgi wrote:
Rickard Öberg wrote
...
2) Great performance
3) Templates does not have to be in files (JSP files do)
...
where does the performance win over JSPs come from? As JSPs are compiled
into servlets, how do you beat that?
Don't know, don't care. It's just faster :-) That
remigijus wrote:
Ok it sounds nice, I'm not against velocity, I'm just curious.
How many hits you are getting per day and peak load?
What hardware and software do you use?
We do load tests sometimes, but it's hard to compare that with reality.
In reality, we do have one web hotel server which curr
Eric Webb wrote:
Since moving to web application frameworks (jakarta turbine and ww2)
I've exclusively used velocity. I find velocity's syntax to be simple,
clean, and sufficently powerful for constructing views. I mean, when
you get down to it, a view is simply html (in most cases), and veloc
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Let's stop with the "we're conservative folks" talk. "We" aren't
anything. "You" are. Unless you are speaking for specific people (please
list them), you are only speaking for yourself.
I know there are users like Rickard and Wayland that have opinions on
this and I'm eag
Marino wrote:
Is there any news regarding Webwork support for Portlet API.
There is a JIRA issue for that
(http://jira.opensymphony.com/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=WW-6)
created on 10/05/2002, but without any progress?
We have a bunch of portlets using WW1 which we are considering porting
to WW2 a
remigijus wrote:
Hi
How can I prevent client form ditect access to any jsp page. I want all
pages to be accessed only after action action process.
Put them under /WEB-INF/ e.g. /WEB-INF/myapp/someform.jsp
/Rickard
---
This SF.net email is
Jason Carreira wrote:
webwork.configuration.xml.reload=true
In your webwork.properties to tell it to check and automatically reload
XML configuration files (this includes the xwork.xml file and any other
included xwork configuration files, validation.xml files, and type
conversion .properties file
boxed wrote:
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I
like the
optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility.
I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of writing
personally.
Let's compare the alternaitves:
Am I wrong
Jason Carreira wrote:
I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and use it...
Definitely agree.
Think about the case where many components/projects using WebWork needs
to be merged into one big app. "Oh that won't work because we used
optional method Foo, whereas you
Matt Ho wrote:
I've opted to move this to the webwork extensions rather than have it
part of the webwork core. Although the VelocityServlet will be
deprecated, that won't be til Velocity 1.5!
One of the features that's extremely appealing about the velocity tool
project is the ability to easil
Hani Suleiman wrote:
WebWork 1.4 has been released, appropriate press blurbage will be
showing up on your regular news channels in the next day or so I
expect. You can grab it from
https://webwork.dev.java.net/files/documents/693/1790/webwork-1.4.zip
Any feedback/testing would be most apprec
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
That's consistent with numbers I've found in migrating one app from 1.3 to
2.0. I've always held out hope that this was just something that
optimization could take care of. In the meantime, my performance isn't
terrible, but it doesn't fly like it did in 1.3, either. Here's ho
Dick Zetterberg wrote:
Removing the interfaces would break many old applications so that should
probably never be done. (Since those are the applications using WW1). So,
since the interfaces will not be removed, then the deprecation might instead
be removed so you don't get the annoying warnings a
Francisco Hernandez wrote:
i believe it was suggested that everyone start using the ActionContext
threadlocal to get what previously gotten by the Aware interfaces..
Yup, that was it.
why using ActionContext instead of Aware is another question :)
Because it's easier and less verbose?
/Rickard
Jason Carreira wrote:
I've added a section on the WebWork page which lists products using
WebWork
http://wiki.opensymphony.com/space/WebWork
Feel free to add yours...
I've added our CMS/portal/doc mgmt tool SiteVision to the list.
/Rickard
-
Bernard Choi wrote:
In this particular, our application which uses webwork resides in an
environment along with other applications. That environment is controlled by
another team, who imposes such restrictions.
Ok, but the question then still remains: why impose such restrictions? I
have yet to f
Bernard Choi wrote:
This solved the problem, as webwork was now working fine. However,
understandably, granting all permissions is not acceptable in the final
system.
Why not?
/Rickard
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome t
Hani Suleiman wrote:
1) I don't see the need to cuss webwork1.
He's not cussing WebWork. He's explaining what is and why it is.
2) The portlet sentence seems rather bizarre to me, a portal
dispatcher? JSR-168 says very little about portals, so a portal
dispatcher is certainly not self-explana
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Webwork in Swing Application?
Are there plans to migrate this code into WebWork2 ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rickard Öberg
e them and populate them (by calling setters)
yourself. Giving it to the ClientDispatcher will send it to the server
for execution, and then it will be sent back when execute() is done so
you can extract the result from it.
That's pretty much all there is to it. Any questions?
/Rickard
-
very
talented people
IMO we should migrate Xwork.
What do you guys think?
I just looked through the PicoContainer description, and it seems as
though all my concerns with Type 2 IoC are resolved. In other words, I
think it's brilliant and wouldn't mind at all if XWork used it.
/Rickard
-
Dick Zetterberg wrote:
Is it not possible to perform this 204 trick just by adding a new standard action that just sets the header and returns NONE? Similar to how the Redirect action works in WW1.x. One would then just chain to this action whenever one wants the header to be set?
Would that work,
Jason Carreira wrote:
So you don't think there should be a HttpHeaderResult to enable you to return special Http header codes?
That's not what I said. I was talking about the result codes, not view
types.
HttpHeaderResult seems fine to me.
/Rickard
n-specific result value. Introducing it as a standard result
doesn't seem necessary.
Mathias, do you have an example of why you'd want both SUCCESS and
NO_CONTENT simultaneously?
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do.
Michael Blake Day wrote:
First of all I have to ask: why won't you store a template in a
relational database?
One word: overkill. Since the database is already a bottleneck in most
applications, I try to relieve the stress as much as possible. Usually
putting templates (which are used on every re
Anthony Eden wrote:
Or (as we do) you can simply give Velocity a String with the template.
And of course, String's are easy to store in databases.
I assume you are not allowing the use of #parse or #include since if you
are or plan on allowing it then you will need to use a ResourceLoader.
Early
Anthony Eden wrote:
Are you trying to allow modifications of Velocity templates stored in an
unexpanded WAR? There is not an easy way to do this as far as I know.
Well, it shouldn't be *that* hard, but it'd be a hassle when you do
upgrades *shiver*
This is not to say it can't be done but
Michael Blake Day wrote:
How do you guys allow customers to modify velocity templates without mucking
with WAR files?
We have portlets which render pieces of pages, and a portlet have a map
(string->object) as configuration. We typically have a "template" entry
which contains the template to be u
x27;ll do some work in this area once we start
working on the Portlet API migration/implementation.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, make
s do their own customizations without
much trouble.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The best
thread debugger on
Hani Suleiman wrote:
Alright, so based on the feedback so far, the consensus seems to be:
webwork jsp UI tags are much slower than velocity equivalents. So the
culprit seems to be the webwork UI tags, not jsp itself.
Well, it's the base JSP include overhead that is bad, really. Including
a JSP h
Hani Suleiman wrote:
Most people seem to be in agreement that velocity templates are at least
an order of magnitude faster that jsp pages, which to me seems a
bit...odd. So I was wondering if anyone has good (small) examples of
this being the case. Webwork examples don't count as good examples
Jason Carreira wrote:
Set the button names to all be "command" and set the value to the name
of a command in your CommandDriven Action and have methods named
doSave,doCancel, etc.
This does not work well with an i18n'ized app, and also doesn't work if
the button name has several words.
It's a ve
f the parameter defaults to
"" or "/" the out-of-the-box behaviour would remane the same.
As long as it's done on a per-package basis that seems ok to me.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
Jason Carreira wrote:
Why don't you just go ahead and tell us what you see as drawbacks for
this approach. Obviously if Patrick thought the drawbacks outweighed
the benefits then he wouldn't be endorsing it.
The only thing that is obvious is that the drawbacks Patrick *saw* did
not outweigh the be
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
What are the drawbacks of this approach?
/Rickard
Not too many... I suppose the NPE problem could crop up.. It also makes your
design a bit unclear to novices ("Where'd the Connection come from?"), but
these are pretty minor.
Are there really no other drawbacks you can thi
Rob Rudin wrote:
I think one drawback can be that you have to do some extra null-
checking. In the case of a connection, the class probably has a
private instance of Connection, and when it needs to use the
Connection, it might not have a guarantee that the Connection
is not null - i.e. that set
Cameron Braid wrote:
I'd start to use WW2 if I knew that there were only going to be minor
modifications in interfaces, configuration etc...
Any idea how stable these things are now ?
I don't think it's a good idea to make declarations of how stable things
are at this point. The interfaces could r
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Even more, services can depend on other services, so you can create very
large resource dependencies such that each resource is small by itself, but
can be used to form large building blocks. XWork examines the dependency
graph and correclty loads resources in the correct o
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Just a reply to all the comments on Joe's blog...
The *Aware stuff is coming back in a big way in XWork/WebWork 2.0. It's part
of the Inversion of Control and Component-oriented approach that actually
turns out to be very nice. I was originally an advocate of deprecating t
Jason Carreira wrote:
I started looking at doing this and ran into some snags. For instance,
if the code calling the Proxy wants to get at the Action, how does it do
that? The ActionInvocation won't even have been created yet, if the
Proxy hasn't been executed, and will the Action make sense in a c
Jason Carreira wrote:
* This method in ConfigurationManager is wrong:
Interceptor getInterceptor(String clazz)
It assumes that there is only one instance of each
interceptor class.
This does not account for the case where one instance is used
with many
names (compare with servlets), and confi
Jason Carreira wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, and the right way to do this is probably to enforce that
views have
this style "/WEB-INF/foo" where "foo" is the name of the
subapp, i.e. do
a "hard prefixing".
Jason Carreira wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree :-) I think it's useful for some cases.
How about this one: You've got an action you want to alias multiple times with different defaults?
If that ever comes up, I'll answer it. So far I've never come across
such a situation, for me or anyone
Jason Carreira wrote:
Sort of, but it's not used that way.
In what way is it not used as a cache?
E.g.:
foo.xml
java:/BarDS
What happened to the idea of breaking up the config file with an
entity resolver? Then you could have
&package1 &package2
This could be another way of breaking up
Jason Carreira wrote:
There are 2 types of parameterization, and you're free to use either
or both. The params in the configuration are static params which are
intended to parameterize a reusable Action for one or more aliases.
For instance, if you had an email action you might parameterize it
with
Jason Carreira wrote:
123
bar
456
foo
Why are "params" declared explicitly? What's wrong with finding
ition to the tag, there should also be an
tag, peered with , to allow developers to break up large
xwork.xml files.
Why not use the standard XML way to include files in other files, i.e.
using entities? The above seems a bit like reinventing the wheel.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAI
Jason Carreira wrote:
I was thinking it would be good to let them be able to do a series of
modifications to the programmatic configuration side then commit them
all at once. The runtime configuration is not really a cache, it's
another set of data structures that is built from the first set.
But,
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Interfaces are nice to make mock objects of. Let's keep it around, helps
with unit testing I believe :)
Well, that argument could be used to justify using interfaces everywhere
for anything. It's not really a good reason, in itself. As a "bonus"
perhaps. But, again, since
Jason Carreira wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking:
1) Remove the ManageableConfiguration Interface (was
ProgrammableConfiguration) - this is just ConfigurationManager 2)
Make RuntimeConfiguration into a class and move that part of
ConfigurationManager over to it
There will always be only one RuntimeC
tand "refreshing". Then, any loaders that can
reload can remove the previous configuration and add a new one.
I see your points, but I still think there are some details to be
worked out. Check out the code and let me know how you think it
should change.
There's always details to
Jason Carreira wrote:
-Original Message- From: Rickard Öberg
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah, ok, I looked at the interface you sent in email, and true, it
doesn't describe it well. But, I would argue that the interface
should be split, as I described in my first email on program
Jason Carreira wrote:
Well, it's supposed to provide an interface to allow the
configuration to be modified and then deployed to runtime. I'm not
sure how well ConfigurationBundle describes that.
Ah, ok, I looked at the interface you sent in email, and true, it
doesn't describe it well. But, I wou
Jason Carreira wrote:
How about ManagableConfiguration?
or ConfigurationPackage
or ConfigurationUnit
or ConfigurationBundle
Either works, but maybe ConfigurationBundle best describes what it
actually is.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored b
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Yup, I personally like SnipSnap, but it's got a lot of missing features that
make it just not good enough. Mainly:
1) Email notifications
2) Revision history
3) File attachments
Agree with these.
4) WikiNaming support (I hate doing [Foo Bar], I like FooBar)
But certainly n
Jason Carreira wrote:
Undying praise and gratitude? :-)
I tried that one, but my co-workers didn't fall for it :-) They just saw
the enourmous mountain of support email I'd have to deal with -> less
time for actual work.
/Rickard
---
This sf
Cameron Braid wrote:
Rickard,
Is your AOP Framework availible for public use ?
Nope. I built it when we started on the CMS/portal SiteVision that we're
developing, but it has not yet been released for public use yet.
Ironically, we're actually having a little trouble seeing what benefits
it
in order to install here and got stuck
immediately. I have the same thoughts as you above. Except, I would use
my AOP framework as the base for both object model and persistence :-)
Anyway, +1 on the whole thing, and both for the app itself and good demo
of WW.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öb
Steve Conover wrote:
Would it be possible to make the view selection algorithm pluggable, as
a Strategy or something like that? Just a thought.
It could be, but it would have to account for allowing multiple
algorithms to be present. If a webapp A is composed of webapps B and C,
both of which
etDispatcher's
pretty error page will not be shown).
Is this the way it is supposed to work - or should GenericDispatcher and
ActionResult actually handle Throwable instead of Exception?
I think you just found a bug :-)
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anders Engström wrote:
This is a functionality I miss in WW a lot. You can only specify views
based on success, error, input etc (please correct me if I'm wrong).
- but it would be very nice if you could select view based on Exception
or user-defined return-values:
The idea is that if an excep
Scott Farquhar wrote:
Rickard Öberg wrote:
He never said that he wasn't using the WebworkVelocityServlet. The
method he describes is mostly just to get access to the action as a
Velocity object. Otherwise it would be impossible to call methods, as
he described.
I'm confused.
ever, I am not "against" it if you find it useful, as long as the old way
of doing it still works.
As I noted the default would be that it works exactly like today.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
--
call methods, as he
described.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
ll correctly we might as well use getModel(), since it looks
cleaner.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + I
doing form names such as
"myBean/oneProperty" and simply use "oneProperty" instead, if the
getModel() method returns the model to be used both as "input" and as
"result".
What say ye?
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I
about 90%, and JSP for the rest. The
10% JSP are usually forms, since the form tags are not available in
Velocity yet.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is spon
g together into pure request stuff.
The ActionInvocation is one thing, the context is different. There are
*some* stuff that is "in between", but not much.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
-
Jason Carreira wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Velocity as the UI widgets [WW 2.0]
Given that for some of us the dev meeting is at an unearthly
hour of the mo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm new to Webwork and want to use Velocity with it. How can I upload a file
into the framework? I couldn't find any documentation on that.
There's an example of file upload included in the dowload. Just take a
look at that.
/Rickard
--
Ricka
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Small followup to that:
In a result JSP (success.jsp in the example app for WW 2.0) I placed 50
calls of either:
or
Average response time when using the JSP-based components: 162ms
Average response time when using the velocity-based components: 38ms
That's a perfor
Andrew Lombardi wrote:
Rickard,
I've upgraded the version of Tomcat to the latest 4.1.18 and I'm no
longer getting the security permissions errors. However, the URI
*.action is still not being mapped and I continue seeing this in the log
files:
WARN [DefaultConfiguration] Skipping XML actio
issions. Either
add them or remove security constraints completely. I usually prefer the
latter (easiest) but if want to be strict, then check Tomcat's
documentation for how to set code permissions.
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselog
Jason Carreira wrote:
So the real question here is whether it makes sense to partition Webwork 2.0 into:
Webwork-core
Webwork-el
Webwork-jsp
Webwork-velocity
Webwork-xslt
Webwork-jasperreports
Webwork-freemarket
There may be later extensions to Xwork as well (JMSWork?, MailWork?).
Personally, I
they can't/shouldn't be
merged.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2
all the basic AOP ideas while still
remaining efficient.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld
here (for example).
The ideas are similar though.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Someth
t and see.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http:
Still off-topic.
Rickard Öberg wrote:
Goodbye Jonathan.
Jonathan is bashing on me off-line. Has anyone read the Velocity thread
and found my characterization of it as "disgusting" to be way out of
line and bordering on harassment of Jonathan?
He sez:
"And you had no f
I'll bite. Just this once.
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
Absolutely, go read it.
I think you should go read it too, Rickard. Your comments here do not
seem to be based on any grasp of what really happened.
Just re-read it, and it re-confirmed my assesment of what happened, and
my comments still st
Dick Zetterberg wrote:
Isn't it possible to get a problem even if you do all your work in actions,
for example if you are doing some Model-1 coding? For example if you have an
action that you call many methods on, in a page like:
Later on in the page you decide to get some property from it:
If
esn't
work, or unspecified.
Again, if you just run an action access to the context is not a problem.
If you try to access the context in any other scenario, you're asking
for trouble.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do.
was initialized with HttpSession data if there
is
HttpSession around?
I think ServletActionContext.getSession() works.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is
/ServletContextListener.html
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http
sing a
ServiceContextListener.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftwa
.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
code that does stuff in actions, and in
that case you'd never have any problem.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edi
Konstantin Priblouda wrote:
Hi all,
I tried to get map of values stored in
HttpSession by calling ActionContext.getSession()
Docs state that it shall return map of values in
actual HttpSession while in servlet environment, and
just a map
( global one? ) if called elsewhere.
I used it from JP
his list. But here's the key point: "Look, there's a complete
electronic record of all of this. Go look at it and see if Rickard's
characterization of my 'ranting' is accurate." That's pretty
reasonable, huh?
Sure enough.
And ironically, your post is an excel
with that.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
that FreeMarker was the ultimate solution and that he
was entitled to telling everyone of this regardless of everyone on the
list begging for the opposite. It was (to me) quite disgusting.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
nk FreeMarker should join OS.
IMHO.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http:
he action aliased with the
name).
Excellent!!!
Check out the code in the sandbox in CVS.
Way to go Jason!
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.N
ailable.
That was the reason. Improving performance may be a more important
factor though, so go ahead and change it if you want to. Just make sure
that all calls to the conf. does proper null checking.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselog
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
I found a possible way around this, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea or
not :)
What if the FilterDispatcher never actually makes a call to
filterChain.doFilter()? This would get around the "duplicate view request"
problem outlined below, but would require that the fil
especially if you, like us,
use includes EVERYWHERE).
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Somet
ch has this and this semantics").
Sometimes flexibility is good, sometimes it's a recipe for disaster. In
this particular case I'd say it's the latter.
Either make OGNL work ok, or go with 1). I'd personally prefer 1).
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sen
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
