--- Wes Wannemacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 10:42 -0800, Dave Newton wrote:
> > --- Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...] (and therefore none of us that still use emacs could possibly
> > > by good coders) [...]
> > Fixed your typo.
> Don't forget about tho
On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 10:42 -0800, Dave Newton wrote:
> --- Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] (and therefore none of us that still use emacs could possibly
> > by good coders) [...]
>
> Fixed your typo.
>
> Dave
>
>
Don't forget about those of us using ed/cat/butterflies
htt
--- Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] (and therefore none of us that still use emacs could possibly
> by good coders) [...]
Fixed your typo.
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional command
CleverSwine wrote:
auto-suggest IDEs...
The combination of your assumption that all "good coders" use IDEs (and
therefore none of us that still use vi could possibly by good coders),
continued posting about the same issue without any additional
contributions to the conversation (this would b
newton.dave wrote:
>
>>> One of the reasons people used the technique was to avoid a minimal
>>> amount of extra keystrokes. Java 5's static imports removed the need
>>> for the extra keystrokes.
>> I disagree.
>
> Go ahead. That's why people did it. There's no other reason to do it.
Did you
2008/2/29, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> > Err... Does C++ have interfaces at all? All I recall is that C++ has
> > classes.
>
>
> Of course it does. A simple google search
> (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=C%2B%2B+interfaces&btnG=Google+Search)
> would
--- CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> > Err... Does C++ have interfaces at all? All I recall is that C++ has
classes.
>
> Of course it does. A simple google search
>
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=C%2B%2B+interfaces&btnG=Google+Search)
> would have shown you
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:15 AM, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> > I never said it was a good idea, it's just something that was so common
> > that
> > they decided to make it part of the language.
>
> This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding
Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> Err... Does C++ have interfaces at all? All I recall is that C++ has
> classes.
Of course it does. A simple google search
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=C%2B%2B+interfaces&btnG=Google+Search)
would have shown you. Perhaps you're thinking of C.
Al Sutton wrote:
Sounds like a good reason why it isn't possible :).
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio Petrelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: StrutsStatics...
2008/2/29, CleverSwine &l
--- CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> > I never said it was a good idea, it's just something that was so common
> > that they decided to make it part of the language.
> This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Java. I
> really hope you are NOT a comm
2008/2/29, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> In some OO languages (C++ comes to
> mind), the constant interface anti-pattern isn't possible because
> constants
> cannot be defined on interfaces.
Err... Does C++ have interfaces at all? All I recall is that C++ has
classes.
Antonio
Chris Pratt wrote:
> I never said it was a good idea, it's just something that was so common
> that
> they decided to make it part of the language.
This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Java. I really
hope you are NOT a committer on the struts2 project.
Chris Pratt wrot
Musachy Barroso wrote:
I never thought this would generate such a long thread. Yeah we should
fix it, but c'on, we have a ton of bugs to fix and new/cool stuff to
implement :).
musachy
Yeah, this thread is a classic case of non-urgent non-important chatter
(ref Steven R. Covey's book
h
Moving to API compat thread.
Don Brown wrote:
I do agree we need to be much better about how much of our API we
expose to developers, but I think the question of public vs private
API goes beyond the Java semantics and into what a typical Struts user
will encounter. Unless you are a plugin or
I do agree we need to be much better about how much of our API we
expose to developers, but I think the question of public vs private
API goes beyond the Java semantics and into what a typical Struts user
will encounter. Unless you are a plugin or framework developer, it
would be very rare for yo
--- Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Brown wrote:
> > On 2/22/08, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
> >> change is minor in comparison.
> > I disagree with that statement. For Struts 2 users, t
Don Brown wrote:
On 2/22/08, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
change is minor in comparison.
I disagree with that statement. For Struts 2 users, the changes are
only minor. I think you feel them more
On 2/22/08, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
> change is minor in comparison.
I disagree with that statement. For Struts 2 users, the changes are
only minor. I think you feel them more because you are working
Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
change is minor in comparison. if we were to use the commonly accepted
versioning scheme of major vs. minor releases, 2.1.x would eventually
become 3.0 when it goes GA. So, I say make all these "break everything"
changes n
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:34 AM, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> >
> > I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's
> > import static.
> >
>
> I disagree. This was in practice in the '90s, although to say it was
> "common" is a stretch.
--- Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never thought this would generate such a long thread.
Me neither :/ Really, I just wanted confirmation that it was a legacy
holdover.
I vote to deprecate and move the constants into StrutsConstants.
Dave
--
I never thought this would generate such a long thread. Yeah we should
fix it, but c'on, we have a ton of bugs to fix and new/cool stuff to
implement :).
musachy
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Antonio Petrelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/21, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
>
>
It should also improve perf by a tiny bit since several things like OGNL and
TextProviders iterate over all the interfaces and super classes you
implement/extend.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Antonio Petrelli <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/21, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
2008/2/21, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Antonio, you are probably more familiar with the project :-) But the whole
> purpose of minor point releases is to say "hey, i am at least compatible
> with anything else in the 2.x line" -- if you can meet that requirement,
> then you should at lea
Antonio, you are probably more familiar with the project :-) But the whole
purpose of minor point releases is to say "hey, i am at least compatible
with anything else in the 2.x line" -- if you can meet that requirement,
then you should at least deprecate it in 2.1.
Paul
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1
2008/2/21, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I say fix it in Struts 3.0. Yes, it's a horrible pattern to make a
> programming shortcut. But it's certainly not acceptable to change it in
> minor point releases. Better wait for the next major point release to make
> incompatible changes.
-1.
2008/2/21, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > In the dozens of companies for which I've consulted, I haven't
> > seen it done since a client in the educational textbook industry
> > in 2001.
>
>
> Just to provide a counter-anecdote, in the dozens of companies for which
> I've
> consulted I've s
I say fix it in Struts 3.0. Yes, it's a horrible pattern to make a
programming shortcut. But it's certainly not acceptable to change it in
minor point releases. Better wait for the next major point release to make
incompatible changes.
Paul
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PRO
--- CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> > I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's
> > import static.
> I disagree. This was in practice in the '90s, although to say it was
> "common" is a stretch. Much more common has always been to define
--- Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think if you look at StrutsStatics it's not really the constant interface
> antipattern.
>
> It has just 6 constants which are the keys to retrieve the HTTP servlet api
> objects from whichever maps.
That's the constant interface antipattern; an inter
Chris Pratt wrote:
>
> I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's
> import static.
>
I disagree. This was in practice in the '90s, although to say it was
"common" is a stretch. Much more common has always been to define constants
in a utility class or within the c
ace Antipattern or static imports reduce the amount of
typing you have to do, but imho it reduces code clarity.
Al.
- Original Message - From: "Dave Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
Subject: Re:
, but imho it reduces code clarity.
Al.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: StrutsStatics...
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/20, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
>
> IMHO all those "constants" should be scattered to all the needing
> classes, not centralized.
> In my past projects, I often
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/20, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
>
> IMHO all those "constants" should be scattered to all the needing
> classes, not centralized.
> In my past projects, I often
2008/2/20, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
IMHO all those "constants" should be scattered to all the needing
classes, not centralized.
In my past projects, I often had this sort of "statics", but I always
found a way to put
It should be converted, if possible, to an abstract class. Interfaces are
for defining functionality. Furthermore, interfaces can only be public or
package-private. My advice comes from the guy who invented static imports,
but I can't reference to you what I read. Sorry!
Paul
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008
I hadn't even noticed that :)
musachy
On Feb 20, 2008 1:48 PM, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> implements vs imports vs static imports
>
> Probably just left over from the pre-j5 era.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2008 1:42 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...why *do* we have Str
implements vs imports vs static imports
Probably just left over from the pre-j5 era.
On Feb 20, 2008 1:42 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ---
On Feb 20, 2008 10:42 AM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
>
>
I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's
import static. It allowed any class that "implements the interface" to
access the
41 matches
Mail list logo
