[Apache Struts Wiki] Updated: PoweredBy

Date: 2004-07-01T03:22:51 Editor: 158.234.250.66 <> Wiki: Apache Struts Wiki Page: PoweredBy URL: http://wiki.apache.org/struts/PoweredBy no comment Change Log: -- @@ -2,3 +2,4 @@ * [http://www.esag

Re: LazyActionForm

Since the LazyActionForm can be validated like any other ActionForm, I don't see the basis for a technical objection. In the documentation, we would want to *strongly* recommend using the validated version, and remind people it is a *bad* practice to pas

[Apache Struts Wiki] Updated: StrutsMinimalInstall

Date: 2004-07-01T09:47:50 Editor: SteveRaeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wiki: Apache Struts Wiki Page: StrutsMinimalInstall URL: http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsMinimalInstall Formatting changes only (code sections) Change Log: ---

RE: Struts 1.2.1 release?

I vote we just roll it anyways. If we have switched to tomcat-style releases, we can just not label it as stable. I asked one of the tomcat guys last nite at the JakartaOne party if they close out all their bugs and he laughed :) Don > So, if we can solve 29285, it looks like 1.2.1 would be rea

Re: Struts 1.2.1 release?

I agree. Also it seems to me that validwhen was never built to work with mapped properties and therefore this should be an enhancement request rather than bug. I guess the assumption is that as requiredif has been labelled as "deprecated" in favour of validwhen, then validwhen should provide at le

action based client side validation

Hi Everyone, No one is interested in having this action based client side validation ?? I already posted two messages. = Regards, -Kalpesh (703)506-8229 X-3308 (Work) (203)676-9385 (Mobile) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storag

RE: action based client side validation

What are you referring to? What action is "this action" ? -Original Message- From: kalpesh modi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: action based client side validation Hi Everyone, No one is interested in having this action based

RE: Struts 1.2.1 release?

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 13:13:43 -0700 (PDT), Don Brown wrote: > I vote we just roll it anyways. If we have switched to tomcat- > style releases, we can just not label it as stable. I asked one of > the tomcat guys last nite at the JakartaOne party if they close out > all their bugs and he laughed :)

Re: Struts 1.2.1 release?

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:19:39 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote: > I agree. > > > Also it seems to me that validwhen was never built to work with > mapped properties and therefore this should be an enhancement > request rather than bug. I guess the assumption is that as > requiredif has been labelled as

Re: action based client side validation

Kalpesh, Best to open a bugzilla ticket and attach your code there. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/ Niall - Original Message - From: "kalpesh modi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:56 PM Subject: action based client side validation > Hi

Re: action based client side validation

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:56:33 -0700 (PDT), kalpesh modi wrote: > Hi Everyone, > No one is interested in having this action based > client side validation ?? > I already posted two messages. You might have better luck if you attached a patch to a bugzilla ticket and then posted a followup to th

Re: nominate ?

I would agree that both the reality and perception is that patches for enhancements are not often applied. But, throwing bodies at the problem is not the solution. People have to *want* to work on a project like Struts. Really, really, want it, and be willing to work for it. Candidates have to b