Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On 5/5/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ValidationAware, ErrrorAware, RequestAware, ResponseAware,
> SomeOtherStuffAware... Are you kidding? I might not understand
> something (heck, I haven't started with W
On 5/5/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ValidationAware, ErrrorAware, RequestAware, ResponseAware,
> SomeOtherStuffAware... Are you kidding? I might not understand
> something (heck, I haven't started with WW yet), but if all thes
On 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ValidationAware, ErrrorAware, RequestAware, ResponseAware,
SomeOtherStuffAware... Are you kidding? I might not understand
something (heck, I haven't started with WW yet), but if all these
interfaces are only meant to implement a callback met
Actually my point was the Servlet*Aware interfaces should be isolated
as their use is generally a bad practice. There was some confusion as
to what RequestAware was doing.
If you have to implement 35 interfaces to implement an action then
obviously this would not be a viable framework. In most ca
On 5/4/06, Eric Molitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I definitely agree that they should be isolated, but glancing through
the api I saw RequestAware but not ResponseAware. (I`m reading the
copy Don posted and not the version under source control.)
ValidationAware, ErrrorAware, RequestAware, Resp
I definitely agree that they should be isolated, but glancing through
the api I saw RequestAware but not ResponseAware. (I`m reading the
copy Don posted and not the version under source control.)
On 5/4/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/06, Eric Molitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
