On Friday 22 Apr 2011 22:51:04 David ?Bombe? Roden wrote:
> On Di, 2011-04-19 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > Plus, ideally we'd like Freenet to support multiple logins.
>
> I?m not quite sure what you mean: Sone already does support multiple
> logins and I am using Fred?s session
On Di, 2011-04-19 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Plus, ideally we'd like Freenet to support multiple logins.
I?m not quite sure what you mean: Sone already does support multiple
logins and I am using Fred?s session handling.
David
On Friday 22 Apr 2011 22:51:04 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
On Di, 2011-04-19 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Plus, ideally we'd like Freenet to support multiple logins.
I’m not quite sure what you mean: Sone already does support multiple
logins and I am using Fred’s session
On Di, 2011-04-19 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Plus, ideally we'd like Freenet to support multiple logins.
I’m not quite sure what you mean: Sone already does support multiple
logins and I am using Fred’s session handling.
David
[Matthew]
> Can you show a small easy to understand example?
> >
> > This way we would make sure that the framework is as big as necessary
> > and as small as possible by avoiding all unnecessary features provided
> > by existing frameworks.
>
> Yeah, if this is feasible then it makes sense.
>
I
[Matthew]
Can you show a small easy to understand example?
This way we would make sure that the framework is as big as necessary
and as small as possible by avoiding all unnecessary features provided
by existing frameworks.
Yeah, if this is feasible then it makes sense.
I have
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 19:35:41 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Plus, ideally we'd like Freenet to support multiple logins.
That would be cool!
Then we could add real gateways to WoT, creating a decentral, anonymizing (as
long as you can trust your gateway) social network.
?getting even more
On Tuesday 19 Apr 2011 18:16:25 David ?Bombe? Roden wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 April 2011 15:19:05 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > > 1. A servlet container (I suggest Jetty) [or adapt already existing
> > > "SimpleToadletServer"]
> > If we are building our own why do we need servlets? Aren't they
> >
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 15:19:05 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > 1. A servlet container (I suggest Jetty) [or adapt already existing
> > "SimpleToadletServer"]
> If we are building our own why do we need servlets? Aren't they
> significantly more complex even than toadlets?
Because most servlet
On Sunday 17 Apr 2011 19:20:28 Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> [pouyan]
> >> httpserver delivered with the Java 6 is only a simple webserver and is
> >> not a servlet container. on the other hand I don't think that it would
> >> be complicated to imitate some vital functionalities of a servlet
> >>
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 15:19:05 Matthew Toseland wrote:
1. A servlet container (I suggest Jetty) [or adapt already existing
SimpleToadletServer]
If we are building our own why do we need servlets? Aren't they
significantly more complex even than toadlets?
Because most servlet containers
On Tuesday 19 Apr 2011 18:16:25 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 15:19:05 Matthew Toseland wrote:
1. A servlet container (I suggest Jetty) [or adapt already existing
SimpleToadletServer]
If we are building our own why do we need servlets? Aren't they
significantly
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 19:35:41 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Plus, ideally we'd like Freenet to support multiple logins.
That would be cool!
Then we could add real gateways to WoT, creating a decentral, anonymizing (as
long as you can trust your gateway) social network.
…getting even more excited
[pouyan]
>> httpserver delivered with the Java 6 is only a simple webserver and is
>> not a servlet container. on the other hand I don't think that it would
>> be complicated to imitate some vital functionalities of a servlet
>> container
>> Those for MVC architecture say "Aye"
[Ian]
> MVC is
Poyan you're on the right track - adding more girth and complexity to
Freenet in the form of an MVC framework, and a programmatic approach to
producing output will bog things down more when you are only after an MVC
paradigm and a simplified way to manage and produce your content.
Using a simple
[pouyan]
httpserver delivered with the Java 6 is only a simple webserver and is
not a servlet container. on the other hand I don't think that it would
be complicated to imitate some vital functionalities of a servlet
container
Those for MVC architecture say Aye
[Ian]
MVC is a nobrainer,
Poyan you're on the right track - adding more girth and complexity to
Freenet in the form of an MVC framework, and a programmatic approach to
producing output will bog things down more when you are only after an MVC
paradigm and a simplified way to manage and produce your content.
Using a simple
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> httpserver delivered with the Java 6 is only a simple webserver and is
> not a servlet container. on the other hand I don't think that it would
> be complicated to imitate some vital functionalities of a servlet
> container.
> I was aiming
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Pouyan Zachar pouyans...@gmail.com wrote:
httpserver delivered with the Java 6 is only a simple webserver and is
not a servlet container. on the other hand I don't think that it would
be complicated to imitate some vital functionalities of a servlet
container.
> Java 6 ships with a web server:
>com.sun.net.httpserver
>
> for this, but, again, it's still a lot to take on, given that the needs are
> modest.
>
>
> IMO, best to keep the content separate from mechanics... All content files
> (HTML/JavaScript)
> should be editable using HTML editing tools
Java 6 ships with a web server:
com.sun.net.httpserver
for this, but, again, it's still a lot to take on, given that the needs are
modest.
IMO, best to keep the content separate from mechanics... All content files
(HTML/JavaScript)
should be editable using HTML editing tools
>> > I must agree with the fact that Struts and similar frameworks (Wicket)
>> > are too huge to be delivered with Freenet.
>>
>> I have seen struts in action... DON'T DO IT! :)
>>
>> IMO it would be *alot* of work to port, for a negative benefit (it
>> would be bigger, slower to start, slower to
On Friday 08 Apr 2011 15:36:23 Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On 2011/04/06 (Apr), at 4:16 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
>
> > [freenet.10.technomation]
> >> Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by
> >> JBoss, Spring etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring
> >>
Java 6 ships with a web server:
com.sun.net.httpserver
As Pouyan, you just want to be able to take some basic HTML/JavaScript
and server them up from.
This can be done from a single servlet utilizing a templating engine
aproach. Velocity is great
for this, but, again, it's still a lot to take
On 2011/04/06 (Apr), at 4:16 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> [freenet.10.technomation]
>> Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by
>> JBoss, Spring etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring
>> considerable configuration. Given the amount of HTML in Freenet,
>>
On 2011/04/06 (Apr), at 4:16 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
[freenet.10.technomation]
Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by
JBoss, Spring etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring
considerable configuration. Given the amount of HTML in Freenet,
then one would
On Friday 08 Apr 2011 15:36:23 Robert Hailey wrote:
On 2011/04/06 (Apr), at 4:16 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
[freenet.10.technomation]
Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by
JBoss, Spring etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring
considerable
I must agree with the fact that Struts and similar frameworks (Wicket)
are too huge to be delivered with Freenet.
I have seen struts in action... DON'T DO IT! :)
IMO it would be *alot* of work to port, for a negative benefit (it
would be bigger, slower to start, slower to run, harder to
Java 6 ships with a web server:
com.sun.net.httpserver
As Pouyan, you just want to be able to take some basic HTML/JavaScript
and server them up from.
This can be done from a single servlet utilizing a templating engine
aproach. Velocity is great
for this, but, again, it's still a lot to take
[freenet.10.technomation]
> Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by JBoss, Spring
> etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring considerable
> configuration. Given the amount of HTML in Freenet, then one would think a
> lightweight templating engine might be more
[freenet.10.technomation]
Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by JBoss, Spring
etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring considerable
configuration. Given the amount of HTML in Freenet, then one would think a
lightweight templating engine might be more in
Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by JBoss, Spring
etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring considerable configuration.
Given the amount of HTML in Freenet, then one would think a lightweight
templating engine might be more in order: Apache Velocity for
[Original message from Pouyan]
>> >> I wanted to suggest porting already existing "Toadlets" to normal
>> >> servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity
[Matthew Said]
>> > My recollection is servlets are far more complex and we don't use most of
>> > their features? On the
On Tuesday 05 Apr 2011 13:19:10 Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> [Original message from Pouyan]
> >> I wanted to suggest porting already existing "Toadlets" to normal
> >> servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
> >> would make it easier and more intuitive to design and
[Original message from Pouyan]
>> I wanted to suggest porting already existing "Toadlets" to normal
>> servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
>> would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
>> interface (fproxy) using JSP pages. However it
On Thursday 31 Mar 2011 09:56:22 Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> Hi everyone:
>
> I wanted to suggest porting already existing "Toadlets" to normal
> servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
> would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
> interface
On Thursday 31 Mar 2011 09:56:22 Pouyan Zachar wrote:
Hi everyone:
I wanted to suggest porting already existing Toadlets to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
interface (fproxy)
[Original message from Pouyan]
I wanted to suggest porting already existing Toadlets to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
interface (fproxy) using JSP pages. However it may not be
On Tuesday 05 Apr 2011 13:19:10 Pouyan Zachar wrote:
[Original message from Pouyan]
I wanted to suggest porting already existing Toadlets to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
[Original message from Pouyan]
I wanted to suggest porting already existing Toadlets to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity
[Matthew Said]
My recollection is servlets are far more complex and we don't use most of
their features? On the other hand,
Struts is a large, complex and largely superseded framework (by JBoss, Spring
etc) - the .jar is several megs in size, requiring considerable configuration.
Given the amount of HTML in Freenet, then one would think a lightweight
templating engine might be more in order: Apache Velocity for
[Excerpts from original message]
>> I wanted to suggest porting already existing "Toadlets" to normal
>> servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity.
[Excerpts from Ian's message]
> I'll all for moving to a standard web framework, rather than our current
> home-grown
Hi everyone:
I wanted to suggest porting already existing "Toadlets" to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
interface (fproxy) using JSP pages. However it may not be an easy task
to
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> [Excerpts from Ian's message]
> > I'll all for moving to a standard web framework, rather than our current
> > home-grown solution. However there are a lot of options to choose from.
> > Why Struts, and not another option (like, for
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> Hi everyone:
>
> I wanted to suggest porting already existing "Toadlets" to normal
> servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
> would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
> interface
Hi everyone:
I wanted to suggest porting already existing Toadlets to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
interface (fproxy) using JSP pages. However it may not be an easy task
to adapt
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Pouyan Zachar pouyans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone:
I wanted to suggest porting already existing Toadlets to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity. This
would make it easier and more intuitive to design and develop the web
[Excerpts from original message]
I wanted to suggest porting already existing Toadlets to normal
servlets and utilize Apache Struts framework for more simplicity.
[Excerpts from Ian's message]
I'll all for moving to a standard web framework, rather than our current
home-grown solution.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Pouyan Zachar pouyans...@gmail.com wrote:
[Excerpts from Ian's message]
I'll all for moving to a standard web framework, rather than our current
home-grown solution. However there are a lot of options to choose from.
Why Struts, and not another option
49 matches
Mail list logo
