What type is the "foo" property on your Action?
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:07 PM
> To: WebWork
> Subject: [OS-webwork] Xwork configuration issue?
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
Hello all,
I'm setting up Xwork for the first time, following the instructions here:
http://wiki.opensymphony.com/space/Xwork+Validation+Framework
I think I have all the files in the correct places, with the correct values:
* I have a validators.xml file in my class root directory.
* I have a Fo
>
> Can a stack reference a stack? It is sometimes nice of actions could
> refer to "default" which in turn could refer to either
> "defaultStack" or
> "defaultDebug". Actions then refer to "default" and can be switched
> between production and debug simply by editing the "debug"
> intercepto
Jason Carreira wrote:
Here you can see that I've implemented Rickard's ideas (see
http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/RickardXWorkThoughts).
1) Packages - All configuration settings are in a package. Result types,
interceptors, and actions are all package context specific, no more
global sett
January 27, 2003 4:55 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] Xwork configuration update
> I've checked in some new Xwork configuration code. Here's the test
> xwork.xml file:
>
>
>
>
> class="com.opensymphony.xwork.ActionC
I've checked in some new Xwork configuration code. Here's the test
xwork.xml file:
ember 18, 2002 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork configuration
> Ara Abrahamian wrote:
> >>>Using Rickard's approach has another benefit:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> > Is such a huge time
saver?
>
> Yes, but mostly it's for readability.
>
> > I'm sure you don't type the package name yourself, you just
copy/paste
> > it. So imho we're trying to fix a non existent problem.
>
> If you don't like it, don't use it.
Ok, that's a good thing to let both mechanis
Ara Abrahamian wrote:
Using Rickard's approach has another benefit:
Excuse moi but what's the problem with this:
If you have 30-40 of these in a row it makes for easier reading to have
the short names.
Is such a huge time saver?
Yes, but mostly it's for readability.
I
> > Using Rickard's approach has another benefit:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
Excuse moi but what's the problem with this:
Is such a huge time saver?
I'm sure you don't type the package name yourself, you just copy/paste
it. So imho we're trying to fix a non existent problem.
Brockman Bulger wrote:
Using Rickard's approach has another benefit:
Since the fully qualified classname of the action can be determined at
startup, the PrefixActionFactoryProxy wouldn't have to try each package
prefix to determine the classname at runtime. In other words,
basically remove the PrefixActionFactoryProxy class and shorten the factory
stack. Unless I missed something.
- Brock
From: Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork configuration
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:34:52 +0100
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
I like all the ideas that have been presented so far, keep it up guys!
One thing that boxed said here does remind me of an interesting point:
By using package prefixes for a standard file (instead of naming the class
completely each time), things like IDEA's refactoring
rk as
well. Not a huge deal, but something to mentioned. Of course, if you could
just not use the package defaults if you want to do that.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "boxed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:37 PM
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> boxed
> I find this rather confusing myself. Why not just do name="com.example.weblog.actions.entry.CreateEntry"
> alias="CreateEntry"> if
> you want to avoid any ambiguitiy? This seems like a lot bet
> I think it will be more obvious if we do something similar to ant :
>
>
>
>
>
>
> addentry.jsp
> addentry.jsp
> viewentry.jsp
>
>
>
> This also help to avoid the ambiguity when classes in different package
have
> same name ( Something pretty co
Brockman Bulger wrote:
One of the biggest disconnects I had when moving from Struts to WebWork
(I really like WebWork) was getting a handle on the actions.xml file. To
elaborate a little, when you declare an action in Struts you're using
the fully qualified classname in the config file. The exa
I think it will be more obvious if we do something similar to ant :
addentry.jsp
addentry.jsp
viewentry.jsp
This also help to avoid the ambiguity when classes in different package have
same name ( Something pretty common actually ).
IMHO, a
Proposed for XWork
One of the biggest disconnects I had when moving from Struts to WebWork (I
really like WebWork) was getting a handle on the actions.xml file. To
elaborate a little, when you declare an action in Struts you're using the
fully qualified classname in the config file. The exampl
Brock,
Just post your ideas on the mailing list and and Wiki and we can discuss
them.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Brockman Bulger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:04 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] XWork configurati
I noticed the roadmap for XWork at:
http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/XWork+Roadmap
The configuration system is on the list to be overhauled and I had some
thoughts on how to simplify it and make it more intuitive for users and
developers. As I'm new to the mailing list and have only had
21 matches
Mail list logo
