e, but doing it like I gave (which
is deploy-time and makes a lot of sense in many cases) is impossible right
now.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Darren Hobbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:40:11PM -0800, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
> All done with an ActionPool:
>
> Foo.action=Foo
> Foo.success=DoTriggers.action
> DoTriggers.action=ActionPool
> DoTriggers.params.action1=DoBlah
> DoTriggers.params.action2=DoBleh
> DoTriggers.params.action3=DoFlog
> DoTriggers.
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] More thoughts on Configuration
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:48:58AM +0100, Rickard wrote:
> >
> > Hm... maybe I'm just going crazy here, but the
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:48:58AM +0100, Rickard wrote:
>
> Hm... maybe I'm just going crazy here, but the above smells like it
> needs AOP :-) SCE sounds like an interceptor to me...many of the
> problems here seem to be related to NOT making a difference between
> actual functionality and th
Is no one seeing it? AmI really just that strange with WebWork usage?
*Sigh* Patrick, you are fighting against the framework instead of
trying to use it. No matter how many times I show you how to accomplish
what you want, you don't even try it. Stop trying to force it to work
the way
> >CreateAccount.action=Create
> >CreateAccount.error=create_error.jsp
> >CreateAccount.success=SendConfirmationEmail.action
> >SendConfirmationEmail.action=SendEmail
> >SendConfirmationEmail.error=create_error.jsp
> >SendConfirmationEmail.success=LoginUser.action
> >SendConfirmationEmail.params.su
IL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] More thoughts on Configuration
Cool, Billy's still around. :-)
Philipp Meier wrote:
What happens when SendConfirmationEmail.action hits an error condition?
Assume
asing the SAME
action in MANY different places. Not only for chaining (though that is a
good use) but also for generic action re-use. You can so much more power by
being able to specify params as well.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Maurice Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
Philipp Meier wrote:
Recently I developed a simplistic WebWork clone in Ruby.
That reminds me, I know a guy who is doing a WebWork like clone in C#
and Maverick was at least partially inspired by WW.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Nice architecture work
Rickard!
-Maurice
> In a web environment, a single termination point is logical, but as we
> move away from being web based, might there be a place for ending on
> multiple views? For the above example, CreateAccount could have 2 success
> views, one view rendered to SMTP, the other to HTTP. Since an Action
> should
Cool, Billy's still around. :-)
Philipp Meier wrote:
What happens when SendConfirmationEmail.action hits an error condition?
Assume the email cannot sent because of network misconfiguration. This
should certainly be reported to the user. (Threre I would suggest
including the send email logic i
Am Mit, 2002-11-06 um 10.44 schrieb Erik Beeson:
> > "Can a chain have more than one View?"
> >
> > Yes, of course:
>
> I read this to mean, can a chain actually finish on more than one view.
> For example:
>
> CreateAccount.action=Create
> CreateAccount.success=SendConfirmationEmail.action,creat
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Well, I was looking at SendConfirmationEmail as an action/view inside the
chain, not as a chain in and of itself. I can see a lot of power in the
ability to, say, do something like this (poorly thought out, I just got
up):
SubscribeToList.action=Subscribe
Subscribe.success
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
> SendConfirmationEmail isn't exactly a chain, the example got munged up and I
> really did mean SendEmail to be used as an Action. Anyway, enough about
> that... to answer your question:
>
> "Can a chain have more than one View?"
>
> Yes, of course:
W
> "Can a chain have more than one View?"
>
> Yes, of course:
I read this to mean, can a chain actually finish on more than one view.
For example:
CreateAccount.action=Create
CreateAccount.success=SendConfirmationEmail.action,create_success.jsp
In which case the answer would be no. A chain can on
inger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] More thoughts on Configuration
> In summary, Maurice brought up a good point about SendConfirmationEmail
> being a View rather than an action...
>
al Message -
From: "Maurice C. Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] More thoughts on Configuration
> Our debate both raging through email and irc, is in a much different
> place than
at this level of configuration
could be
addressed in 2.0. Maybe if Maurice or Mike gets a chance, he can try
to sum
up what we went over in #java.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Maurice C. Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, Novemb
In summary, Maurice brought up a good point about SendConfirmationEmail
being a View rather than an action...
That brings up another concept. Can a chain have more than one View? I
personally agree with Maurice in this: sendConfirmationEmail sounds
EXACTLY like a view (that happens to be "viewed"
ld be
addressed in 2.0. Maybe if Maurice or Mike gets a chance, he can try to sum
up what we went over in #java.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Maurice C. Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [O
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 06:45 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
I believe I've nailed down, in words, why the current configuration is
sub-optimal. The Configuration object uses a single method:
I disagree. You have yet to ask for any functionality that can't be
handled by the current con
PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] More thoughts on Configuration
> Isn't this is a violation of basic programming principals - don't put lots
> of data into a string? :)
>
> Could we just make a '
Exactly my point all along.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] More thoughts on Configuration
> Isn't this is a violation of basic
Isn't this is a violation of basic programming principals - don't put lots
of data into a string? :)
Could we just make a 'ViewObject' that is returned instead?
(ie for backward compatibility - ViewObject.getString() returns the current
think - so no change?)
That is confusing (rereading) - basi
A while back when Rickard asked what else, besides GenericDispatcher, was
needed to make WebWork a more generic command framework, I responded with
the following list:
-Ditch JavaBeans, replace with OGNL
-Provide more dispatchers based on GenericDispatcher (SOAP, Servlet, Swing,
etc)
-make confi
25 matches
Mail list logo
