Definitely getting a bit off topic, but... :)
Matthew Porter, who works for Contegix, recently wrote an article that
I think is very relevant:
http://www.porterhome.com/blog/matthew/2005/11/15/1132088805733.html
Contegix has tried to address these "single points of failure" by
providing a broad
On 12/1/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am very much against taking ASF content off-site, as it were. We have
> a
> > perfectly good wiki, and that's where our content should be. I know
> there
> > are a bunch of Confluence
On 11/30/05, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presumably the Struts committers are going to heavily involved in the
> compatibility, so if for no other reason, it will be easier for us to
> work on that in an Apache.org repository.
I plan to be very heavily involved in compatiblity and mi
On 12/1/05, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would volunteer that Contegix, the hosting company that handles
> OpenSymphony, OpenQA, Spring, Atlassian, Jive, Cenqua, and others
> would be happy to help Struts (and Apache, I suppose) in the future.
> As I mentioned to Ted and Don, I'
I think doing the compatibility layer after the code is imported in
to Apache makes sense. WebWork has various developers who go in
spurts of involvement. The two core developers are Jason and myself.
Lately, there have been about 3 or 4 others pretty actively involved,
but I'm sure they wo
The docs are getting a _lot_ better. We're doing a 2.2 beta 4 release
today that will have a bunch more docs.
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Don Brown wrote:
Pilgrim, Peter wrote:
If I understand you rightly the traditional `RequestProcessor'
derived process flow, namely
ActionServl
I totally understand Martin's concerns.
Let's not try to bite off more than we can chew just yet. We've got
enough on our hands with the WebWork/Struts merger :)
I would volunteer that Contegix, the hosting company that handles
OpenSymphony, OpenQA, Spring, Atlassian, Jive, Cenqua, and othe
On 11/30/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am very much against taking ASF content off-site, as it were. We have a
> perfectly good wiki, and that's where our content should be. I know there
> are a bunch of Confluence fans out there, and maybe it's a better product in
> some ways.
On 11/30/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Or vice-versa. :) I have a strong preference for Confluence, and
> Atlassian is providing this space for use of Apache projects. I'd
> like to look into making similar arrangements for use of the Jive
> forums.
I am very much against taking
Joe Germuska wrote:
There isn't directly, and this was one of the first additions I made
to WebWork when I started Struts Ti. In WebWork, the servlet
dispatcher does everything prior and including identifying the Action,
then hands it off to the interceptor chain. My code in Struts Ti
replac
There isn't directly, and this was one of the first additions I made
to WebWork when I started Struts Ti. In WebWork, the servlet
dispatcher does everything prior and including identifying the
Action, then hands it off to the interceptor chain. My code in
Struts Ti replaced this with a servle
Pilgrim, Peter wrote:
If I understand you rightly the traditional `RequestProcessor'
derived process flow, namely
ActionServlet => RequestProcessor => Action => View
is gone to be replaced by the WebWork / X Work processing
chain.
If someone has invested in Commons Chain command will
> -Original Message-
> From: Don Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
====
>
> Pilgrim, Peter wrote:
>
> > Ok great so is Ted Husted also involved in the 2nd edition
> > and I presume Manning is fine with both Struts in Action
> > and Webwork in Action in the future ``merging'' as one.
>
Or vice-versa. :) I have a strong preference for Confluence, and
Atlassian is providing this space for use of Apache projects. I'd
like to look into making similar arrangements for use of the Jive
forums.
-Ted.
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted, I've started to bring some o
Ted, I've started to bring some of the merger stuff over to the Struts Ti wiki.
Could I migrate the FAQ as well, or were you wanting to keep it where it is?
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, as I send this, I see Patrick responded saying the
Actually, Contegix does fully-managed hosting and we might even wish
to use some of the services (wiki, jira, etc) for Struts Ti
development. Contegix is _excellent_ and do everything from handling
upgrades, to 24 hour monitoring and support. Atlassian has donated
JIRA and Confluence licenses, howe
Niall Pemberton wrote:
I'm probably going to say something stupid and show my ignorance of
WebWork now, but number one on my list would be CoR and integrating
Commons Chain commands - both as a replacement for the Struts Action
and as a way of inserting custom "request processing" behaviour. I
un
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, as I send this, I see Patrick responded saying the same thing but
> much better :)
See also
*
http://opensource2.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/STRUTS2/WebWork+Merger+FAQ
-Ted.
---
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > Its probably a great plan to switch to WebWork 2.2 but I still don't
> > see how you can say its a "merger" if no Struts code is involved -
> > merger in terms of community, but not software.
>
> I view this merger as fi
On 11/29/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/29/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Let's reserve Tuesday night, after the two Struts related sessions,
> to
> > have
> > > > these conversations.
> >
> > Sounds good. Perhaps we should discuss over beer?
>
On 11/29/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Let's reserve Tuesday night, after the two Struts related sessions, to
> have
> > > these conversations.
>
> Sounds good. Perhaps we should discuss over beer?
Beer is good :-). Indeed, the only bummer about ApacheCon this year is
t
Don Brown wrote:
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I'd love for Shale and Struts Ti to collaborate more, and in a
perfect world, both depend on the same core. Struts Ti won't be
JSF-specific (ever), but that doesn't mean it can't integrate wi
> > Let's reserve Tuesday night, after the two Struts related sessions, to have
> > these conversations.
Sounds good. Perhaps we should discuss over beer?
> Don
sean
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional c
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I'd love for Shale and Struts Ti to collaborate more, and in a
perfect world, both depend on the same core. Struts Ti won't be
JSF-specific (ever), but that doesn't mean it can't integrate with JSF.
I'm lookin
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, I'd love for Shale and Struts Ti to collaborate more, and in a
> perfect world, both depend on the same core. Struts Ti won't be
> JSF-specific (ever), but that doesn't mean it can't integrate with JSF.
> I'm looking forward to Apac
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Its probably a great plan to switch to WebWork 2.2 but I still don't
see how you can say its a "merger" if no Struts code is involved -
merger in terms of community, but not software.
I view th
Great. I don't think it requires JSF.
It also works w/ Ajax and has Ajax modules (and that has little to do w/
JSF afiak).
Sounds like a simple resolution: Shale can be JSF centric but not
require it so it works w/ other (rich, client side) views.
We we lived happily ever after.
.V
Don Brown w
> ...and learn Webwork *then* after all. Why not to simply say "Struts
> sucks, let's drop it and march together into the better future under
> OpenSymphony standard?" Why the need of keeping *this* community
> *here* instead of moving/creating community *there* ?
First time poster :)
I would say
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > Its probably a great plan to switch to WebWork 2.2 but I still don't
> > see how you can say its a "merger" if no Struts code is involved -
> > merger in terms of community, but not software.
> I view this merger as firs
The sticking point is Shale requires JSF, and Struts Ti does not want that
dependency. My hope is we will be able to find code in both projects that could
be shared, somehow.
Don
netsql wrote:
The features that are in Ti and WebWork, can they be bolted on Shale?
.V
Don Brown wrote:
Actual
The features that are in Ti and WebWork, can they be bolted on Shale?
.V
Don Brown wrote:
Actually, I'd love for Shale and Struts Ti to collaborate more, and in a
perfect world, both depend on the same core. Struts Ti won't be
JSF-specific (ever), but that doesn't mean it can't integrate with
Pilgrim, Peter wrote:
Ok great so is Ted Husted also involved in the 2nd edition
and I presume Manning is fine with both Struts in Action
and Webwork in Action in the future ``merging'' as one.
Ted has helped early on by reviewing our proposal and TOC, but the book is being
written by Nick H
> -Original Message-
> From: Don Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 November 2005 16:27
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Tough Questions on Struts and Webwork Integration
>
>
> These are some great questions, and particularly relevant to
>
On 11/29/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First, we bring in the WebWork 2.2 code which forms the Struts Ti core.
> > Then, we develop a Struts compatibility layer. Along the way, if we
> > see anything from Struts Action 1.x t
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First, we bring in the WebWork 2.2 code which forms the Struts Ti core.
Then, we develop a Struts compatibility layer. Along the way, if we
see anything from Struts Action 1.x that should also go into Struts Ti
core, we
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, we bring in the WebWork 2.2 code which forms the Struts Ti core.
> Then, we develop a Struts compatibility layer. Along the way, if we
> see anything from Struts Action 1.x that should also go into Struts Ti
> core, we can add it. Honest
Actually, I'd love for Shale and Struts Ti to collaborate more, and in a
perfect world, both depend on the same core. Struts Ti won't be
JSF-specific (ever), but that doesn't mean it can't integrate with JSF.
I'm looking forward to ApacheCon so we can sit down with Craig and
look at ways we c
First, we bring in the WebWork 2.2 code which forms the Struts Ti core.
Then, we develop a Struts compatibility layer. Along the way, if we
see anything from Struts Action 1.x that should also go into Struts Ti
core, we can add it. Honestly, I don't really see anything of Struts
Action 1.x t
idealy ... it be great to bolt on webwork and ti features on top of
Shale code base, or at worst fork Shale as a starting point.
there I said it!
.V
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
On 11/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) A users has invested his or her hard-earned cash in `WebWork' in Action
> > book.
> > Will contents of this tome still be relevant in Struts?
>
> Absolutely, since Struts Ti == WebWork 2.2, with some package name changes.
>
> > 5) What a
These are some great questions, and particularly relevant to me as I'm
working on the 2ed edition of Struts in Action. You can be sure our
book will cover, at least in part, Struts Ti. Here is my 2c:
Pilgrim, Peter wrote:
Hi
1) Is the WebWork name going to exist still?
No, at least not in
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
====
>
> I have a few thoughts on this and I will try to avoid the "Which
> framework is better?" discussion.
>
> Change is inevitable. Struts (as you know and use it today) will
> eventually become obsolete. Nob
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
====
>
>
> By no means do I consider myself the authority to answer these, but
> here are some responses based on my understanding and my interest in
> how things go. In summary, really a lot of these questions ar
I have a few thoughts on this and I will try to avoid the "Which
framework is better?" discussion.
Change is inevitable. Struts (as you know and use it today) will
eventually become obsolete. Nobody can say when the last meaningful
Struts 1.x application will be written but that day will eventua
Hi Peter,
I guess bringing together the masterminds of multiple
web frameworks is a good idea, even if there is a
transition phase and some blood that flows...
it will make Java as a web platform much stronger.
Best regards,
Marky
Pilgrim, Peter wrote:
Hi
1) Is the WebWork name going to exi
By no means do I consider myself the authority to answer these, but
here are some responses based on my understanding and my interest in
how things go. In summary, really a lot of these questions are
premature based on the likely pace of development, and as always, the
community is going to se
46 matches
Mail list logo
