cvs commit: jakarta-struts/conf/test/tomcat50 server.xml

martinc 2004/03/21 23:16:37 Modified:.build-tests.xml build.xml Added: conf/test/tomcat50 server.xml Log: Add initial support for Cactus tests running against Tomcat 5.0. The tests themselves run just fine, but for some reason Tomcat doesn't stop once the tests ha

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/conf/test/tomcat50 - New directory

martinc 2004/03/21 23:06:12 jakarta-struts/conf/test/tomcat50 - New directory - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/web/test/test/org/apache/struts/taglib/html TestFrameTag3.jsp TestFrameTag5.jsp TestFrameTag7.jsp TestImgTag1a.jsp TestImgTag3a.jsp TestImgTag5a.jsp TestImgTag7a.jsp TestLinkTag1.jsp TestLinkTag3.jsp TestLinkTag4.jsp TestLinkTag5.jsp TestLinkTag6.jsp TestLinkTag7.jsp TestLinkTag8.jsp

martinc 2004/03/21 22:06:58 Modified:web/test/test/org/apache/struts/taglib/html TestFrameTag3.jsp TestFrameTag5.jsp TestFrameTag7.jsp TestImgTag1a.jsp TestImgTag3a.jsp TestImgTag5a.jsp TestImgTag7a.jsp TestLinkTag1.

Re: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

Ted Husted wrote: On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:55:00 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote: I am now leaning towards 3 repos myself: struts-legacy This is our current repo, renamed. I don't really care for this name, but I can't think of anything better right now, and I hate sticking numbers in

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > Quoting Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote: > > > > Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As > > > > you've sai

Re: "coming out" for JSF + Struts, was: Struts JSR?

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:49:45 -0500, Thomas L Roche (not speaking for IBM) wrote: > summary: McClanahan should clearly state *in some major publication* IMHO, either people like us will be able use JSF without Struts, or we won't. If we can, great. Less is more. If we can't, we'll create whatever

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

Quoting Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Martin Cooper wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote: > > > > Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As > > > > you've said, we

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

Quoting Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote: > > > Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As > > > you've said, we can always change things around later. > > > > The prob

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:50:27 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote: > Incidentally, where would Tiles land in all of this? In theory, > it's not tied to JSP, but rather to Servlets, so it might be > applicable to some other presentation technologies, but clearly not > all. Yes, it might be a good idea

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:55:00 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote: > I am now leaning towards 3 repos myself: > > > struts-legacy >This is our current repo, renamed. I don't really care for this >name, but I can't think of anything better right now, and I hate > sticking numbers in repo na

Re: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:05:44 -0800, Nathan Bubna wrote: > Martin Cooper said: > .. >> Another thought on this. When we get to Struts 2, I'd like to see >> us remove all of the JSP-ness of Struts from the core, and also >> add some degree of support for other presentation technologies, >> such as XS

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/web/test/test/org/apache/struts/taglib/html TestFrameTag1.jsp TestFrameTag3.jsp

martinc 2004/03/21 16:45:28 Modified:web/test/test/org/apache/struts/taglib/html TestFrameTag1.jsp TestFrameTag3.jsp Log: Fix some tests that were broken when module support was added to TagUtils.computeURL(). Revision ChangesPath 1.4 +8 -8

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27702] - MultipartPost values cannot contain latin1 characters when server is running on linux

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/upload CommonsMultipartRequestHandler.java

husted 2004/03/21 16:41:34 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/upload CommonsMultipartRequestHandler.java Log: Apply #27702 "MultipartPost values cannot contain latin1 characters when server is running on linux" reported by Raimo Ihle. Revision Change

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/doc/userGuide struts-nested.xml

husted 2004/03/21 16:37:05 Modified:doc/userGuide struts-nested.xml Log: Apply #27662 "Add filter attribute to and " submitted by Firepica and John Cavacas. Revision ChangesPath 1.26 +12 -0 jakarta-struts/doc/userGuide/struts-nested.xml Index: struts-nest

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27662] - Add filter attribute to and

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

At 10:55 AM -0800 3/21/04, Martin Cooper wrote: I see little advantage of all those separate repos over just one repo, since that one repo could be organised in exactly the same way. In other words, why use separate repos over something like this: I was trying to figure out what people meant by mul

Re: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

Martin Cooper said: ... > Another thought on this. When we get to Struts 2, I'd like to see us > remove all of the JSP-ness of Struts from the core, and also add some > degree of support for other presentation technologies, such as XSLT and > Velocity. So, instead of having 'taglib' where it is in

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Martin Cooper wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote: > > > Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As > > > you've said, we can always change things around later. > > > > The proble

Re: Struts JSR?

Craig R. McClanahan said: ... > My personal vision is that Struts developers will focus their energy on the > controller and model tiers, leveraging the existence of standard (and not) > technologies in the view tier. as someone using and working on the VelocityStruts project, this is great to hea

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote: > > Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As > > you've said, we can always change things around later. > > The problem is that is that we already have the simplest thing. An

"coming out" for JSF + Struts, was: Struts JSR?

summary: McClanahan should clearly state *in some major publication* * that JSF does/will not "replace Struts" * how JSF and Struts will likely tend to specialize, in future * how probable specializations will complement (and compete) in webapp development I.e. pretty much what he has alrea

Bug report for Struts [2004/03/21]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Re: [PROPOSAL] Struts infrastructure changes

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 09:44:23AM -0800, David Graham wrote: ... > I've expressed my opposition to this on commons-dev so I'll sum up my > points here: ... > 2. We've been fairly consistent with tracking corresponding bugzilla > bug numbers in the cvs commit messages. This has proved extremely >

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote: > Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As > you've said, we can always change things around later. The problem is that is that we already have the simplest thing. And, if we want multiple Maven-based products with

Re: OT: Struts JSR?

I think all of these things are already on the Struts Jericho list. The exception being workflow integration. The Struts Workflow is OK, but I personally don't like to use multiple action paths for workflows. Of course, the really cool thing about the Struts Chain is that it makes it very easy t

Re: OT: Struts JSR?

> > Such as? What kinds of innovations are you looking for, and specifically > what kinds of things are you seeing other frameworks use that Struts could > benefit from? > I posted this before but here is my struts 2.0 wish list again: * Leverage JSF and JSTL remove struts tags that have simil

Re: OT: Struts JSR?

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Nadeem Bitar wrote: > On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 20:41 -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > > Quoting Thomas L Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > David Geary spoke on JSF at trijug.org M 15 Mar 04. My notes of > > > his remarks include > > > > > > - Is JSF a replacement for Stru

RE: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status

Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As you've said, we can always change things around later. Steve > -Original Message- > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: March 20, 2004 9:44 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: branching 1.2 and