On 8/18/03 7:20 AM, Francisco Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can we have a sneak peak at what you've done?
I was about to post a question asking if anyone has started to work on
anykind of xwork/webwork2 introductory article or tutorial.
I've got a couple of projects demanding my
On 8/17/03 10:05 PM, Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Along the lines of making it easier for new users, we need something like
this:
http://www.springframework.org/docs/MVC-step-by-step/Spring-MVC-step-by-step.h
tml
If someone else wants to do it, great... If not, I'll eventually
can we have a sneak peak at what you've done?
I was about to post a question asking if anyone has started to work on
anykind of xwork/webwork2 introductory article or tutorial.
Tracy Snell wrote:
On 8/17/03 10:05 PM, Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Along the lines of making it easier
This will cut the amount of explaining needed for a hello world type app
down by an entire step. Anyone else got ideas like this that will cut
down on the learning curve for newbies?
Of course, start with providing a tutorial.
---
This
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Hani Suleiman wrote:
A whole big bunch of people. If you want to show progress of batch
processes, a web app is probably the absolutely stupidest way of doing
it. A request/response paradigm is a pretty foolish way of providing
continuous feedback. A swing client would be
Jira seems to be down still.
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 2:59 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Simplicity of WW2 - Practical ideas
I'm open to having a package-wide default action package which would
I had a discussion on #java with Epesh, and he expressed the sentiment
that WW2 might be turning into a too complex system which will alienate
new users and be popular with the gearheads and such when it leaves
nerd-domain. After reading the responses to the Simplicity in WW2
email I must
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,
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
You can already test actions to setup xwork.xml - just instantiate the
object, call your setter methods and run!
Are you trying to scare users away now? I was talking WW2, not XW, so a
web-based interface where you can get immediate feedback in the
environment
from an outsiders point of view.. i think i'd have to admit
that requiring a proper classname everywhere would actually
increase complexity.
but it is nice to be able to think of actions by their name,
it seems a but superfluous when you're constantly changing their
names.. i like thinking of
Just to play the devil's advocate, people using full J2EE are unlikely
to be huge xwork/webwork fans anyway. Unless of course you mean
servlets/web containers, rather than J2EE. As surprising as it is, an
app with xwork, webwork, lucene, hibernate, sitemesh, and oscache is
not a
Well, it's a J2EE app in my book - personally I don't agree with Sun (see my
blog's AVK rant) that a J2EE app _must_ contain EJBs, JSPs etc.
Either way (J2EE or not J2EE) people who use WW, XW, Lucene, Hibernate etc
are used to XML files - that was my point.
M
On 18/8/03 10:37 AM, Hani Suleiman
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
boxed
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Simplicity of WW2 - Practical ideas
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
You can already test actions to setup xwork.xml - just instantiate the
object, call your setter methods
Well this isn't a matter of opinion. J2EE contains JMS, EJB,
connectors, JNDI, RMI-IIOP, servlets, jsps, and JTS. An app that uses
just servlets could be called J2EE technically, sure, but since it's
using such a tiny subset with a specific identifiable name (web apps),
it's a lot more
-Original Message-
From: boxed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 7:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Simplicity of WW2 - Practical ideas
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
You can already test actions to setup xwork.xml - just
instantiate
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Simplicity of WW2 - Practical ideas
Just to play the devil's advocate, people using full J2EE are
unlikely
to be huge xwork/webwork fans anyway. Unless of course you mean
servlets/web containers, rather than J2EE. As surprising
: Sunday, August 17, 2003 8:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Simplicity of WW2 - Practical ideas
Just to play the devil's advocate, people using full J2EE are
unlikely
to be huge xwork/webwork fans anyway. Unless of course you mean
servlets/web containers, rather than J2EE
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Jason Carreira wrote:
So who's building full J2EE apps without a web front end (at least for the
adminsitration)? Even someone doing big batch processes needs to see how they're
progressing sometimes...
I am. TechNews.
McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 9:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Simplicity of WW2 - Practical ideas
I would argue against anything that would increase the
possibility of subtle errors. If a solution like the one you
suggest could
19 matches
Mail list logo
