Yeah, doesn't yet, but the plan is to add that in soon. Tonight I'll make
the code quicker and then start incorporating Rickards ideas.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:0
>>> My favourite usecase is the show-edit-update-show usecase. Which means
>>> having the need to pass the primary key of the object updated to the
>>> action show which is the view of the Update action. Views.proptiers
>>> whould look like that:
>>>
>>> Show.success=show.xslt
>>> Update.success=S
Saw of few posts lately related to expression languages.
The following might be worth reading :
http://www2.theserverside.com/resources/articles/CoreJSTL/CoreJSTLChap5.pdf
Cheers,
___
François Beauregard, b.ing.
Vice-président
Recherche et développement
Pyxis Technologies
> Packaging I would define as the ability to create 'components'
consisting
> of
> WW actions, configuration for those actions and the views. With
Velocity
> (loaded from classpath) views, abstracted common view code and
> componentised
> actions.xml, what else do we need to do?
Mike is bringing u
Philipp Meier wrote:
Ok, forget what I was saying. How will we then implement the
interceptors? If I got it right, we should avoid instantiation of many
objects. So the interceptors should not be intantiated for every
execution? Perhaps the interceptors can be reused but this leads to the
resuse p
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:57:17PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Philipp Meier wrote:
> >Can't we use a proxy for this? Actions should at least be safe to reuse if
> >programmed carefully. Or am I wrong here?
>
> This has been discussed before, but no, actions cannot be safely reused.
> The basi
Philipp Meier wrote:
As for objects being created, I haven't run a profiler or anything like
that. Can you give me some more detail of what you're seeing that is "bad"
and what you're seeing that is "very bad"? :)
Well, just tracing an action invocation there's a bunch of objects being
created,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:23:35PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Patrick Lightbody wrote:
> >As for objects being created, I haven't run a profiler or anything like
> >that. Can you give me some more detail of what you're seeing that is "bad"
> >and what you're seeing that is "very bad"? :)
>
> W
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:40:05PM +0100, Philipp Meier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:23:35PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> > Patrick Lightbody wrote:
>
> > >As for objects being created, I haven't run a profiler or anything like
> > >that. Can you give me some more detail of what you're see
I can apply some real-world examples here:
I'm in a screen that is updating document metadata, and the form submits to
UpdateMetadata.action. But UpdateMetadata.action is actually an alias for a
complex chain:
ValidateMetadata -> BeginTx -> StoreMetadata -> CommitTx ->
StoreMetadataInHtmlFiles ->
I'll follow a few examples in the source and see where I can clean it up.
Thanks for checking in to this.
I don't have much more to say on the "rethink" thread, I'm in agreement of
everything. Mike is correct, you and I are on the same wavelength, just
coming from different sides. We should get to
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
OK, sure, let's talk about it it more (or maybe I'll piggyback on to the
massive "rethink" thread!).
Do that.
The XML config is verbose, and it could be cleaned up a bit. It was a first
attempt to just show the features of the underlying Configuration interface.
I don'
This is effectively what I had been doing with action chaining in WebWork
1.3, but in a much more cumbersome and slower (lots of objects being
created). I'd have things like BeginTx and CommitTx being "wrapped" around
the meat of my actions. Very similar to AOP in concept, I suppose, since
they act
Agreed, especially with these latest (great) ideas from Rickard et all.
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Ottinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL
> I'd also like to point out th
OK, sure, let's talk about it it more (or maybe I'll piggyback on to the
massive "rethink" thread!).
The XML config is verbose, and it could be cleaned up a bit. It was a first
attempt to just show the features of the underlying Configuration interface.
I don't expect it to last at all in it's cur
boxed wrote:
* Chaining. IMHO this needs a big rethink, and most of all we need to
check: what are the usecases to be implemented.
What would be an alternative way of doing chaining? Your example where the
chaining is done in code and is specified by the action itself is just not
acceptable for
> * Chaining. IMHO this needs a big rethink, and most of all we need to
> check: what are the usecases to be implemented.
What would be an alternative way of doing chaining? Your example where the
chaining is done in code and is specified by the action itself is just not
acceptable for me, as it w
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 02:30:18PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Philipp Meier wrote:
> >My favourite usecase is the show-edit-update-show usecase. Which means
> >having the need to pass the primary key of the object updated to the
> >action show which is the view of the Update action. Views.propt
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, [UTF-8] Rickard Ãberg wrote:
> Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> > Well, note the quotes I used. "Correctness" can be taken a lot of ways.
> > What I was referring to was buzzword-compatible correctness, where the
> > comp sci grads are happy applying all of their new-found knowledge
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Well, note the quotes I used. "Correctness" can be taken a lot of ways.
What I was referring to was buzzword-compatible correctness, where the
comp sci grads are happy applying all of their new-found knowledge in ways
that end up making the product less usable. Between usabi
Philipp Meier wrote:
* Commands. Having two actions on a page both using commands doesn't
work. Generally this feature feels a little weird.
Rickard, I don't really understand what you mean by "two actions on a
page". Could you please explain this to me?
If you have a JSP that does include of
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, [UTF-8] Rickard Ãberg wrote:
Man, you REALLY need to get rid of that wacky "o" you use. :) :) :) *duck*
*run* *dodge* *splat!* :)
> >>Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> > I'll wait for more on this. I really don't like the idea of webwork
> > focusing more on doing it "correctly" than
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
* Validation. Clunky design, and not enough loosely coupled to the action.
I personally *like* how webwork currently handles validation. This is one
of Struts' weakest points, and webwork's solution rocks. How would you
suggest it be done?
There
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:17:25PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> About the design of XWork.
After staying away from ww for some time I'm happy to comment on this
;-)
> * Commands. Having two actions on a page both using commands doesn't
> work. Generally this feature feels a little weird.
Ricka
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> >>* Validation. Clunky design, and not enough loosely coupled to the action.
> >
> >I personally *like* how webwork currently handles validation. This is one
> >of Struts' weakest points, and webwork's solutio
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, [UTF-8] Rickard Ãberg wrote:
> Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> >>* Validation. Clunky design, and not enough loosely coupled to the action.
> >
> > I personally *like* how webwork currently handles validation. This is one
> > of Struts' weakest points, and webwork's solution rocks.
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Packaging I would define as the ability to create 'components' consisting of
WW actions, configuration for those actions and the views. With Velocity
(loaded from classpath) views, abstracted common view code and componentised
actions.xml, what else do we need to do?
T
Wow - this would make life so much easier - I want this stuff! :)
-mike
On 30/12/02 7:31 PM, "Rickard Öberg" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
> Patrick Lightbody wrote:
>> In your last email you talked about changes in the context and pre/post
>> processing. I think I know what you are hint
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
* Validation. Clunky design, and not enough loosely coupled to the action.
I personally *like* how webwork currently handles validation. This is one
of Struts' weakest points, and webwork's solution rocks. How would you
suggest it be done?
There needs to be a way to sepa
Rickard,
Great ideas all - I think you and Patrick are on the same wavelength with a
lot of the Xwork ideas, you're just coming at them from different angles!
As for packaging, I think this is perhaps the coolest feature of Tapestry
that WW doesn't have yet - and Xwork will get sooo close.
Packa
I'd also like to point out that it's possible to view XWork as a different
product than WebWork. I don't know if that's the intent, but XWork seems
to be slightly hamstrung by trying to be "WebWork 1.4 nee 2.0" - which may
be acceptable, maybe not.
It may be in its best interest to say "Well, we'r
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, [UTF-8] Rickard Ãberg wrote:
> About the design of XWork.
>
> While WebWork was pretty ok, some of the features that were put in are
> not optimally designed. Here are some of the things I'm concerned about:
> * Commands. Having two actions on a page both using commands doesn
About the design of XWork.
While WebWork was pretty ok, some of the features that were put in are
not optimally designed. Here are some of the things I'm concerned about:
* Commands. Having two actions on a page both using commands doesn't
work. Generally this feature feels a little weird.
* Val
Agree. I added it as a bug.
-Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Heng Sin Low" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] 1.3 final release
> How about the non thread safe cache of propertyeditor in beanutil ?
shouldn't
> t
FWIW, I like this idea. I would like to see XWork capture some of Rickard's
latest ideas especially AOP.
-Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] context and pre/post proc
Patrick,
I'm looking through the new XWork code and I'm getting really scared.
There's a LOT of stuff happening each time an action is invoked. Lots of
methods are called, lots of objects are created (and then discarded) and
a lot of copying, converting etc. is going on. Just the stuff created
A couple more notes on this.
Rickard Öberg wrote:
---
Action getAction(String name)
{
return new SecureAction(new ChainAction(new FooAction()));
}
The above is of course not scalable, since creating a set of proxies for
*each invocation* will make the GC go crazy. Since they're typically
st
I completly agree on all the points you said concerning not be able to make
a 100% switch to XWork from WebWork with no code changes.
what I wanted to say is my concern regarding the changes in the EL format we
were discussing ('.' instead of '/' etc.). this would allow me to not make
to much chan
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
In your last email you talked about changes in the context and pre/post
processing. I think I know what you are hinting at (simply the ActionFactory
and move the work in the Action implementation itself), but maybe you can go
in to more detail here? Also, how could it be a
How about the non thread safe cache of propertyeditor in beanutil ? shouldn't
that be consider a significant bug that need to be fixed ?
Regards,
Low
--- Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt, I've updated the WebTable stuff I had been meaning to do for a while
> (thanks Paolo!), so
Rickard,
In your last email you talked about changes in the context and pre/post
processing. I think I know what you are hinting at (simply the ActionFactory
and move the work in the Action implementation itself), but maybe you can go
in to more detail here? Also, how could it be an alternative way
All,
I just tested a clean-from-cvs-HEAD copy of webwork against a very simple action to see if i18n
works for the property tag, with no success - all I seem to get back is garbage characters. This is
on both resin 2.1.6 and tomcat 4.1.18 on XP/jdk 1.4.
My tests consist of setting the webwork.i
Vedovato Paolo wrote:
I think that it's a very important point to be able to switch to XWork
without having code changes AND to have all the improvements (like
performance etc.).
Hm... not sure if that's realistic. Switching with minimal code changes,
yes, but with no code changes I don't know.
43 matches
Mail list logo
