Dano (or David),
Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem
right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend*
in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling
LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-(
Cheers,
Darren
On Dec 15,
Hey Darren,
Something like this:
// Old and busted
LiftRules.prependDispatch(RestAPI.dispatch)
// New hotness
LiftRules.dispatch.prepend(RestAPI.dispatch)
Lather, rinse and repeat for dispatch, rewrite, etc
Better, or worse?
Ty
On Dec 18, 4:47 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote:
A bit better, thanks - that fixed the *Dispatch calls. Now it's just
the following lines causing a problem:
LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates)
LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch {
case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest)
if r.param(token).isDefined =
Darren,
Any LiftRules.append* or LiftRules.prepend* becomes LiftRules.*.append or
LiftRules.*.prepend
e.g.: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) -
LiftRules.template.prepend(User.templates)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote:
A bit better, thanks
Caught the rewrite one too, leaving:
LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates)
LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch {
case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest)
if r.param(token).isDefined =
() = RestAPI.sendMsgWithToken(r)
}
David,
error: value template is not a member of object
net.liftweb.http.LiftRules
I removed net/liftweb from my Maven repo about an hour ago, so I'm
pretty sure I'm up to date with the latest build.
Cheers,
Darren
On Dec 18, 10:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com
wrote:
Darren,
Apache ESME source is now fixed building cleanly again - thanks to
David for this.
Cheers,
Darren
On Dec 18, 10:48 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote:
David,
error: value template is not a member of object
net.liftweb.http.LiftRules
I removed net/liftweb from my Maven repo
Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be
able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the
variables naming is more or less the same.
If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ...
in this way I may be able to help.
Br's,
Marius
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
So LiftConfig would take the role of LiftRules from API perspective
meaning that LiftRules could be completely hidden from Lift users but
available internally to Lift only ?
Since LiftRules would then only expose
Marius,
David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig
myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not
'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the
future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on
which signatures
On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing
an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs
being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be
On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for
throwing
an exception
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to beat a
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun,
On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for
throwing
an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs
being
David,
sounds reasonable.
So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense.
In the light of htis, it shouldn't be possible to call the prepend/append
outside of boot.
I suggest my approach described previously. (Injecting an initialization
context into boot and use that to
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.comwrote:
David,
sounds reasonable.
So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense.
In the light of htis, it shouldn't be possible to call the prepend/append
outside of boot.
I suggest my approach
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.comwrote:
David,
sounds reasonable.
So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense.
In the light of htis, it shouldn't
So LiftConfig would take the role of LiftRules from API perspective
meaning that LiftRules could be completely hidden from Lift users but
available internally to Lift only ?
Still from maintainability perspective initializing LifRules with a
LiftConfig may imply lots of assignments (unless
Marius,
Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes
are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken
code?
Dan
On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread
Jorge
21 matches
Mail list logo
