Wow - I was just playing with long running tasks yesterday for a few hours,
I even built a 'LongRunningTask' interface and action :)
I tried to make our implementation completely generic, so that you can make
long running tasks easily for all sorts of tasks.
Here's how ours works (or will
Hi,
We're using Velocity with WW2 and international characters? AFAIK the
WebWorkVelocityServlet just uses the standard webwork.i18n.encoding property
when encoding the templates?
Cheers,
Mike
On 25/2/04 1:56 AM, remigijus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
You are right it is possible to
Francois,
:)
As for why it's required, it makes everything more flexible - and it's not
required at all. Just ignore it and it will do you no harm.
Pico is good (for somethings) but personally I much prefer Spring (that's a
large debate for another time - each to their own) :)
- XWorks IoC
It's very nice to hear such answer. I'm not against velocity, I only little
confused about some decisions was made for ww2. I truly believe that ww2
should be able to work even without presentation layer. But to provide full
functionality it has already, it should have an additional
Actually, I agree with Dick here - it _SHOULD_ be an empty String, not null.
The empty string indicates that the form was submitted with an empty value
in the text field - which is exactly what happened.
A null value indicates that the form was not submitted, or else the text
field did not exist
_exactly_ - you put it perfectly mate.
So how do you tell the difference between a parameter, and not a parameter?
(ie the text field never existed on the form at all) :)
Cheers,
Mike
On 12/12/03 8:59 PM, BOGAERT Mathias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
The problem here is that a HTML
the form field is not filled (empty).
Also, if empty String resolves to , why an empty Integer to null and not
new Integer(0)?
Mathias
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: vrijdag 12 december 2003 11:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
-ref stuff, what do you think of Cameron's
changes? It sounds like he made it more flexible and powerful to me...
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] [OS-xwork
Drew,
We've just been playing with this today and I have to say I agree that this
makes things much neater - good idea!
It would break existing Velocity uses though. Are you using the latest WW2
CVS with Velocity? (We're having problems upgrading to it)
Cheers,
Mike
On 12/11/03 5:24 PM, Drew
Also, if anyone has some 1.3-based applications that they can help me
test backwards compatibility in the near future (after this weekend when
I check in code and an upgrade doc), that would be greatly appreciated.
I have a very large 1.3-based application that I'd love you to test
backwards
If you're looking for acceptance testing frameworks - I suggest you look at
Jameleon (http://jameleon.sourceforge.net/).
It has a really, really cool OO way of looking at web acceptance testing -
which looks like it is really neat for creating reusable chunks of tests.
(Oh - and it uses Jelly so
Well, I'm assuming it wouldn't be enforced. Really I'd like all of these
'extensions' to be bundled as separate JARs?
So you want Pico?
Add xwork.jar and xwork-pico.jar to your /lib directory and set some flag in
webwork.properties.
You want Avalon? xwork.jar and xwork-avalon.jar
Etc etc?
M
Sure - just create a filter which shows all issues created in the last 7
days, and then subscribe the list to it every 7 days :)
M
On 7/10/03 4:16 AM, Jason Carreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
I don't think so
-Original Message-
From: Robert Douglass [mailto:[EMAIL
Of course you realise the irony here. If there were such people, they would
never read your message? ;)
I subscribe to both lists, so I'm really on the fence. I don't mind either
way, it makes little difference!
M
On 7/10/03 1:39 AM, Hani Suleiman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
So, is
Can I just say that all of this advanced cool URL mapping shouldn't be in
WebWork core? It's an extension or addition, that should be shipped
separately?
(Or more likely just written up in a Wiki document for those who want to use
it?)
M
On 3/10/03 12:22 AM, Cameron Braid ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Yes, but I'm not sure it's something that belongs in ActionSupport, as it's
most custom per application. It's very easy for people to add this
themselves.
Error support is necessary as the UI tags need to know about it to work
together nicely.
Action messages are more of a custom app thing to
Uhm - please explain how it would be done? (could be done?)
App scoped component : PersistenceManager (PM)
There is therefore only one PM.
Request scoped component: HibernateSession (HS)
Two requests come in A and B, each with a request scoped component (HS A and
HS B)
A calls
object).
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Issue with component lifecycle dependencies
Uhm - please explain how it would be done? (could be done?)
App
Title: Re: [OS-webwork] How does one change the contentType in the response?
You can still do that if you want ActionContext.getResponse().setContentType() should work AFAIK.
Cheers,
Mike
On 24/9/03 11:50 PM, Thompson, Kris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
I need change the MIME type
3/ Dont you think the struts concept of ActionMessage is a good idea, a
low-cost dev effort to store easyly a message (possibly localized) at the
end of a action to inform the user in the view (creation successful ,...).
This sort of thing is most easily added yourself in a base class. Indeed,
Title: Re: [OS-webwork] JSP tag for viewing Session attributes?
Kris,
What you should do here is provide a getter method in your action, eg:
public User getUser() { return ActionContext.getSession().get(user.key); }
And then in your views you can do user.firstName and it will use getUser()
A good presentation - a lot of familiar content :) but some good new things
too. I like the DBInterceptor (bad pattern, but good example ;)).
I've added this any the link to my old presentation to the WW2 page under
Misc:
http://wiki.opensymphony.com/space/WebWork2
Cheers,
Mike
On 21/9/03
Title: Re: [OS-webwork] New version of XWork editor posted
Jon,
The view backwards references do sound useful (what action+result combinations point to this view) - .vm or .jsp :)
Another thing that might be useful is preview XML which shows you the actual XML that will be generated? People
I¹m not sure how this is related to WW, but I¹ll attack it anyway ;)
Seraph is not a replacement for OSUser or OSAccess. OSUser provides a
server-agnostic user management API, OSAccess provides (afaik I don¹t use
it) a method level security framework and Seraph is a web application
security
.
Did I mention I was open sourcing anything else at TSS? :)
M
On 14/8/03 1:39 PM, Jason Carreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Oh... and what's the status of the Atlassian packages you were talking
about making opensource?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes
Rainer,
What were these used for? Loading global i18n properties files, or loading
other WW properties?
If it's the first I'm definitely for re-adding it - I've been looking for
this feature.
M
On 18/8/03 6:04 PM, Rainer Hermanns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
With webwork1.x you
Francisco,
Take a look at the Counter utility bean, this is what it's for. Look at the
expressions.jsp (or used to be called that) in the examples.
Cheers,
Mike
On 18/8/03 9:37 PM, Francisco Hernandez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
anyone else think it would be useful to add a count
I agree with Hani's points - but must add that on the whole this is awesome!
Very solid, lots of text, good points made throughout.
I know Hani meant to commend you on the overall quality, but forgot (or he
hadn't taken his bile hat off ;)).
M
On 19/8/03 11:29 AM, Hani Suleiman ([EMAIL
Anders,
I have to say that this is a _bad_ idea.
You can already test actions to setup xwork.xml - just instantiate the
object, call your setter methods and run!
People doing J2EE understand XML, they have to. All descriptors are XML.
Xwork.xml is not _that_ complex for a hello world example,
, sitemesh, and oscache is
not a particularly J2EE app. All it uses is jdbc (now part of the core
JDK) and servlets.
On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 06:24 PM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Anders,
I have to say that this is a _bad_ idea.
You can already test actions to setup xwork.xml - just
Don't they already go to the CVS list? That's where all 'automated'
notifications should go. People can then use that as the basis for their
filters to extract only the notifications for modules they want?
M
On 12/8/03 1:26 AM, Pat Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Ee I
Drew,
I think most of these just haven't been ported - but they sound very useful.
I never used Velocity with WW1, but I'm using it with WW2 and have added a
few 'useful' things (like $tools for URL/HTML encoding etc).
Is there a list of all the old WW1 directives? I'd like to port them to WW2.
Joseph - where is the code? No code, no idea - sorry.
Jason - sounds like an interesting idea, but could we focus on getting WW2 /
XW finished and released first? :)
Also the goals of the framework (?) sound too broad. It looks like a
collection of Open Source tools to me, albeit a good one -
James,
The reason you're having problems is you can't put a tag within the
attribute of another tag - that's just illegal.
What you want is an expression.
webwork:if test=../page == . or something.
Cheers,
Mike
On 2/8/03 4:11 AM, James Pan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Hello again,
?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Mike Cannon-Brookes
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: WW1.3 and Sitemesh
Shouldn't be - it's all in the WebWork module? Just deploy the filter
Dudley,
I think this depends on your level of comfort.
Personally I wouldn't start a new application with WW 1.3 at the moment, as
your development cycle is likely longer than the time until WW2 is released.
Also using a framework during it's development is the perfect way to get
your bugs fixed
]) penned the
words:
What does the filter do in this case? Does it become the whole
dispatcher? I thought you had a heated discussion with someone about why
that was a bad idea :-)
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:14 AM
The problem is that (and I've tried this) the WW servlet cleans up the
context and the value stack at the end of it's execution.
The only way I can see to do this reliably (and I'm on a bus at the moment,
so thinking clearly is not the easiest) is to write a WWFilter to replace
the WWServlet?
Using AOP like language - isn't this really an 'AroundInterceptor'?
M
On 17/7/03 12:32 PM, Cameron Braid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
I would think that only 1 abstract interceptor is required, though the one
that is provided doesn't allow the after method to respond if there is an
Why not just do what WW1 had and create a base class for each tag, something
like HTMLComponentTag that has all the HTML attributes in it? (onchange,
onmouseup, class, style, id etc)
M
On 3/7/03 6:24 PM, Matt Ho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Ara brought up a really good point about the
Did we lose ActionContext.getApplication() in favour of the
ServletActionContext one?
I thought the intent of that was a generic 'application scope' map that you
could get / set things into. For a servlet app, that maps (no pun intended)
back to the servlet context.
Mike
On 2/7/03 6:52 AM,
Matt,
Xdoclet generation is an evil of struts - because you need to write so much
crap just to fulfil it's contracts.
See http://blogs.atlassian.com/rebelutionary/archives/000176.html
For unit testing, screw Cactus! (sorry Vincent - it is really cool, but too
slow for any unit testing) Cactus
Erik,
That's exactly how it should work - the beauty of IoC! :)
Do you have the IoC filters / listeners installed? You need these to be
plugged in for the IoC system to work.
http://wiki.opensymphony.com/space/WebWork+2+Components
But what you're doing is how it should be done!
M
On 2/7/03
Haha! This must be from that new mail client - BileMail! :)
On 3/7/03 4:39 AM, Hani Suleiman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
This cannot be the Pat I've grown to distrust and have no faith in, but
I must say I really really like this new guy who has hijacked his email
account and is
OK - I'll say again - it IS optional AND explicit :)
(One way to make it more explicit is make execute() final in AS?)
If you don't want 3 phase action support (for want of a better name) - use
BaseActionSupport - which provides error messages and i18n.
If you DO want it, use ActionSupport -
Bruce,
Does the BaseAS / AS separation not do this for you?
Mike
On 3/7/03 7:05 AM, Bruce Ritchie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Jason Carreira wrote:
snip
I would like to undo this, pull the implementation stuff up into
ActionSupport, get rid of the workflow and BaseActionSupport,
Anders,
Well - those are interesting points.
A) a list of docs that we need to help migration would be _fantastic_.
Perhaps create a skeleton on the Wiki with the points you had trouble with?
I'd be more than happy to fill out the content.
B) The *Aware interfaces are interesting - they have
this in front of the
Workflow Interceptor.
I'm for decoupled pieces you can put together to get the behavior you
want.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS
wrote:
Amen brother!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
IMHO this is just over complicating things.
Regardless of the _removal_
of multiple entry points.
Certainly the workflow we've been talking about is one example, but I'd
like to understand what some others are.
M
Jason Carreira wrote:
Amen brother!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:17
Apologies for my Australian-ism - but your subclass structure is bullshit :)
Why do that? It's far too complex. Just have doCreate(), doRead() etc and
use the code as is. This is exactly what it was designed for?
And as for your analysis of AS - exactly correct, except for the interceptor
bit.
From what I've seen of WW2 so far and comparing how I'd apply it
against our current Struts app, I'd still use Action/execute, perhaps
with my own base class to provide a thin layer of control. I'd use a
validating interceptor that kicked back INPUT without calling execute,
and I'd be able
names.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 06:56 PM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Well, there are tonnes
Yup - especially amusing as I am at TSS Symposium this weekend, hence have
had no email for days, and yet I'm sending out spam :)
M
On 27/6/03 6:17 PM, Rene Gielen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
So are you and Mike ...
Rainer got this mail with sender faked to your adress, I got it
Uhm, well why not just make your task runnable and run it in a new thread?
:) Or you could use a util.Timer.
Another (nicest IMHO) alternative is to make it a scheduled task and use
something like Quartz to kick it off.
M
On 26/6/03 6:05 AM, Jason Carreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
it will work and is likely better than the
server side solutions. Is there something I'm missing?? BTW, I think
this is how expedia used to do it.
LES
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Guys,
Please sort this one way or the other so I don't look like a total joker at
TSS describing our IoC architecture, then we flip around and use Pico :)
j/k
I've only looked at Pico briefly from Paul Hammant, and it does look good. I
kinda like the enabler interfaces personally though,
Rene,
You can do this (I think) like any other model driven action.
GenericValue getObject() {
// lookup the object and return it
}
Then in your JSPs, the fields are just named object/string(foo)
Haven't tested this - but I think it should work.
Cheers,
Mike
On 18/6/03 9:37 AM, Rene Gielen
(and cannot be done in Struts I don't
think!), but the second is 'safer' if your model might change etc.
Cheers,
Mike
On 18/6/03 10:58 AM, Rene Gielen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Mike,
thanks for the quick reply.
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 02:10, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Rene,
You
Where is it? :)
On 18/6/03 11:34 AM, Pat Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Hey all, just letting you know that I'm back in action and have finished a
first pass at an Ognl EL reference that explains the additional stuff on
top of OGNL that XW supports, as well as the differences
URL? (for mailing list posterity)
On 18/6/03 1:49 PM, Pat Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
On the Wiki of course!
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork
and CreateBlogAction-valdiation.xml files.
CreateBlogAction being the action I am validating.
I have tried just about every variations of expression I could think of.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Cannon-Brookes
Sent: Tuesday
, 2003 at 10:48:24PM -0400, Ken Yee wrote:
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Well, I use JSP conditional tags in my SiteMesh decorators
to do this personally? :)
I didn't see any special WW:ui tag that would make it obvious to
use WW either :-P
Could you post an example of what you do w/ JSP
Title: Re: [OS-webwork] JSP 2.0 tag files.
Cameron,
While this would be lovely, 99% of servlet engines dont support JSP 2.0 (most are only just up to 1.2) so I wouldnt like to see this added to WW.
Might work as an add-on though.
Mike
On 11/6/03 8:40 PM, Cameron Braid ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Erik,
OK - good idea. Any particular issues you want to point us at?
M
On 6/6/03 10:21 PM, Erik Beeson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
It would be nice if the core developers could make comments on JIRA issues
as they come in. I'm fairly familiar with the codebase as I've been
Title: Re: [OS-webwork] Suggestion for a change in UI Component Tag
Why would you want to do that? All WW tags should be AbstractWrappingTags (as they are now) - because they can all take parameters via the param tag?
Mike
On 29/5/03 7:28 PM, Cameron Braid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
Jason,
Before I step onto a plane I just have to say - awesome start! :)
I can only implore others to step in and help out where they can, even if
it's just as small as reading the docs over quickly and providing 2 or 3
suggestions to Jason and Patrick?
M
On 18/2/03 5:17 PM, Jason Carreira
Low,
I don't know about anyone else's dates, but I'm giving a presentation on
WebWork 2 at The Server Side's Symposium in mid June, so it will be stable,
tested and released by then ;)
And as for WW + Velocity + Hibernate + SiteMesh, yes that is a killer
combination of tools.
Cheers,
Mike
On
2003 15:38:43 -
To: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Commons Jelly
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some not so positive jelly reviews :)
Well I guess no software can please everyone.
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL
Another view option with our existing EL then :)
-- Forwarded Message
From: James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:30:30 -
To: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Commons Jelly
FWIW, you could drop in OGNL (or indeed any expression language
Andre,
I'll let others tackle the other parts, but for 1) there are no implicit
properties for a view.
They ALL come from the action that has been run.
The reason you probably can't find getErrorMessages() or getErrors() in your
action, is that they are in ActionSupport.
But they are still
Almost, but not quite. :)
RULES OF THE STACK:
1) The stack is just a stack of objects.
2) Initially the stack contains the Action executed (this is why as you say
value=foo calls action.getFoo())
3) New objects are placed onto the stack during the body of various tags
(like ww:iterator or
Wiki's operate on the paradigm that a page is useless without any links to
it - therefore you create the link first.
Makes some sense :)
-mike
On 28/1/03 2:59 PM, Jason Carreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Cool. Got it. It sure wasn't obvious though!
Maybe my wiki paradigm has
Jason,
Awesome - these fit the bill perfectly!
-mike
On 23/1/03 2:19 PM, Jason Carreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Here's a first pass at mission statements for Xwork 1.0 and Webwork 2.0.
Hopefully this will help clear up what Xwork is, what Webwork is, and
what is and is not in
Let's get these up on the Wiki so everyone is 'on the same page' so to speak
;)
-mike
On 23/1/03 2:43 PM, Patrick Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
+1 :)
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22,
I couldn't be more +1 on this! Using velocity for templates would be
awesome. Much better performance.
-mike
On 23/1/03 6:15 PM, Rickard Öberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
I believe that rewriting it to work for Lists would be just fine. The main
thing it is
I vote for all features going into RC2. That's kinda the point of an RC
rather than a final release - so people can test the new features? :)
-mike
On 20/1/03 1:50 PM, Jason Carreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
I'd vote for new features (small, well tested ones) going into RC2...
to release 1.3? I don't think we
want to add EVERYTHING, or we'll never get 1.3 out the door :-)
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] RC2?
I vote for all features
Peter,
Excellent work mate - the Wiki is definitely the best place to record tips,
tricks and roadmap items for discussion.
-mike
On 16/1/03 1:15 PM, Peter Kelley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
There's an area on wiki for discussing enhancements here:
for the
performance challenged ?
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 16:00, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Kirk,
As a guide, we've been shipping code based on 1.3 for a few
months now. And
yes, we use millions of UI tags ;)
I agree with you in general though - talk of 1.4 is silly
when 1.3 isn't out
yet!
Cheers
anyone profiled webwork with JProbe or similar tools to look for hot
spots that could be optimized?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Scope for 1.4
Kirk
Hani,
Do you mean servlet filters? In which case - surely they don't work at all
outside a web environment?
And the other problem is that servlet filters are not applied directly to a
specific action / group of actions, they are URL pattern based? (which is a
royal pain in the ass to define!)
Kirk,
As a guide, we've been shipping code based on 1.3 for a few months now. And
yes, we use millions of UI tags ;)
I agree with you in general though - talk of 1.4 is silly when 1.3 isn't out
yet!
Cheers,
Mike
ATLASSIAN - http://www.atlassian.com
Expert J2EE Software, Services and Support
On 3/1/03 7:25 PM, Rickard Öberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Hrm - no, this is thinking the wrong way mate :)
If webwork defined paths, security would work perfectly right?
So why not have webwork only 'work' if the path is correct (and defined)?
Ie
I would have to say +1 to this - Hani has summarised it exactly.
There are many fools on IRC, and as they say a lot - very little of it is
useful, most of it is utter crap. Ignore them.
I for one don't see why we can't all work together to build a better
framework, rather than splintering all
Yep - +1 from me, but I think Patrick should also have a major role in
contributing, he has done a lot of the initial Xwork thinking and I think
his knowledge of OGNL etc would be valuable.
-mike
On 2/1/03 9:06 PM, Rickard Öberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
matt baldree wrote:
Copmments:
- interceptor-ref name= is ugly XML! Why not just interceptor ref= /
? It's obvious that the name= attribute refers to the name of an
interceptor from the tag name
- is there a global package?
- how are parameterised actions handled? (one of the other main xwork
goals?)
Looks good
Ditto - we do this a lot.
Ie on JavaBlogs, the 'blog entry display' is all a single JSP file, with
many different ways to use it as a view (ie ViewPopularBlogs.jspa and
ViewDaysBlogs.jspa both have the same JSP view file)
I don't see why this is bad? (In fact - it's good - it makes the URLs
If you read the whole email you'd know why. Let me quote:
But it's a dangerous option, since it may not be apparent that this
slowdown will occur. If possible, configuration of actions should not
occur this way.
Given the huge amount of reflection in webwork anyway, is a little more
going to
For one thing, they
perform better. Another reason is that I have the same situation as Pat,
the same jsp is the success page for multiple actions. One final reason
is that the migration path from ww to xw for applications now requires
filters to handle the (automatic) migration from the old
Hrm - no, this is thinking the wrong way mate :)
If webwork defined paths, security would work perfectly right?
So why not have webwork only 'work' if the path is correct (and defined)?
Ie /admin/foo.action would execute foo, but /bar/admin/foo.action would
execute nothing.
That way you keep
Yes :)
On 3/1/03 7:38 AM, Rickard Öberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Jason Carreira wrote:
I dunno. I would argue that if they can't be run by the same role, then they
don't belong together.
So if you've made this cool weblog thingy (as an example) where half of
the actions goes
Also, PLEASE USE THE WIKI SO WE CAN STORE IDEAS GENERATED!
Apologies for the caps - some people don't get it :)
http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/WebWork
and even
http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/XWork+Roadmap
If we put all the generated ideas on the Wiki (don't worry - add a new
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=Show.action
I
Blake,
No. doValidation should only be executed when not using any commands at all,
before doExecute().
If you want to do validation on your commands, you will have to subclass
ActionSupport (overriding execute()) or else build it into each command
yourself.
Cheers,
Mike
On 16/12/02 6:07 AM,
Ken,
You bring up a lot of interesting things here, I¹ll try to reply below
(note: I¹m far from a documentation expert).
Well, I've been looking at a bunch of technologies that we can use to build
the documentation, but I'm not convinced that Maven will help us. Maven is an
interesting
my comments for what they are; a heartfelt plea from the
webwork user/occasional contributor gallery.
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 06:03 AM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Ken,
You bring up a lot of interesting things here, I¹ll try to reply below
(note: I¹m far from a documentation
Ken,
Just to clarify:
1) xdoc is good - it's simple and easy to use.
2) Adding 'bulk' to the build is fine, as long as it's still _simple_ to
build (ie downloading a JAR from CVS that's just 'used to build docs' is no
problem)
3) SiteMesh is used for the website presentation, not for the docs.
make this work
effectively. I look forward to spearheading these plans and I know
they
would help WebWork in many ways.
Regards,
Ken Egervari
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:34 PM
Subject
to these
strengths as they have shown to be true time and again and this will be a
key factor in helping WebWork create more success.
Regards,
Ken Egervari
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
