Jonathan is bashing on me off-line. Has anyone read
the Velocity thread
and found my characterization of it as disgusting
to be way out of
line and bordering on harassment of Jonathan?
I think I'm slightly paranoid. It's already second
list I'm subscribed, where Jonathan appears out of
Hi,
I just had a look at the code and tested it.
Unfortunately it does not work if you close the action tag as you thought
Rickard.
When the Action tag end is reached it calls the dispatcher finalizeContext
method which creates a new ActionContext object and sets it. The lookup
table from any
--- Dick Zetterberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I just had a look at the code and tested it.
Unfortunately it does not work if you close the
action tag as you thought
Rickard.
When the Action tag end is reached it calls the
dispatcher finalizeContext
method which creates a new
Not that I really care, but for some strange reason I feel like the
only adult in the room. Can't you leave this offline? I am sure there
is a He is saying bad things about me mailing list somewhere,
although it is probably dominated by 10 year olds.
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 02:25
I feel like the only adult in the room.
Another reason for a fight. You were just a seed on your father's penis
when I was talking shit on some lousy Internet mailing list - and we
didn't even use computers for that. :-)
I am sure there is a He is saying bad things
about me mailing list
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Can we PLEASE get back to useful discussion? I'm interested in seeing if
XWork is usable, and how much in flux it's considered to be.
Alright, I'd estimate that the fluxness of XWork is about 70%.
Which doesn't mean a whole lot I guess. Wait and see.
/Rickard
--
What areas are likely to change the most? I personally can see webwork2's
functionality being expanded to feature-completeness (I *think* - is there
a list around that actually goes into what feature-complete would mean?)
and configuration on both xwork and webwork 2.
Do you see core changes
On Thursday, Jan 30, 2003, at 14:30 Europe/London, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Can we PLEASE get back to useful discussion? I'm interested in seeing
if
XWork is usable, and how much in flux it's considered to be.
Alright, I'd estimate that the fluxness of XWork is about 70%.
Simon Stewart wrote:
Rickard, just a thought, but how much of the code in XWork is derived
form (or at least, similar in principle to) your own AOP framework? I
get the feeling that there could be a significant amount of overlap
between the two in terms of configuration, interceptors, etc.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:20:52PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Simon Stewart wrote:
Rickard, just a thought, but how much of the code in XWork is derived
form (or at least, similar in principle to) your own AOP framework? I
get the feeling that there could be a significant amount of overlap
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Ottinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork flux
What areas are likely to change the most? I personally can
see webwork2's functionality being expanded to
How does nanning fit into xwork? (http://nanning.sf.net/)
Nanning is a open source AOP library. IMHO the whole
interceptor stuff in xwork can be modeled using nanning.
-billy.
Hey! We've already GOT interceptors!
AOP is cool and all, but I don't think it's necessary to use AOP for
Philipp Meier wrote:
How does nanning fit into xwork? (http://nanning.sf.net/) Nanning is a
open source AOP library. IMHO the whole interceptor stuff in xwork can
be modeled using nanning.
I doubt that it would be worth the overhead. As I said, the current
architecture is good because it uses
I'm not asking that you love me or anything but keep it to yourself.
If you feel the temptation to say negative personal things
about me or
anybody else connected with FM, I hope you will have the
sense to bite
your tongue or sit on your hands or whatever is necessary. And we'll
all
Included in the WW1.3 distribution is a
skelecton-project.zip file.
There are two lib directories containing different jar
files.
skeleton
+--lib
+--src
+--lib
Yet in the build.xml, both libs are included in the
classpath.
path id=core.class.path
fileset dir=${basedir}/lib
Wayland Chan wrote:
Included in the WW1.3 distribution is a
skelecton-project.zip file.
There are two lib directories containing different jar
files.
skeleton
+--lib
+--src
+--lib
The top one is for the build, and the second one is for
compiling/runtime. Very separate purposes, so
+1
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux]
See
http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/XWork+1.0+Mission+Statement
And
Jason Carreira wrote:
So the real question here is whether it makes sense to partition Webwork 2.0 into:
Webwork-core
Webwork-el
Webwork-jsp
Webwork-velocity
Webwork-xslt
Webwork-jasperreports
Webwork-freemarket
There may be later extensions to Xwork as well (JMSWork?, MailWork?).
Personally,
Jason Carreira wrote:
I'm not asking that you love me or anything but keep it to
yourself.
If you feel the temptation to say negative personal things
about me or
anybody else connected with FM, I hope you will have the
sense to bite
your tongue or sit on your hands or whatever is
I think that two jars is a good middle ground:
xwork-1.0.jar
webwork-2.0.jar
This is what we've been planning on all along.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Partition
Alright. EVERYONE JUST IGNORE HIM. That way he gets to have the last
word and will go away. I realise of course that he'll need to respond
to this message, but after that, everyone resist the urge so we can
bury this more embarassing than usual thread.
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 01:52
21 matches
Mail list logo
