--- Drew McAuliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My biggest problem with this is that it basically
> eliminates any advantage
> to using velocity as far as ease of use is
> concerned. One of the main
> reasons I prefer velocity over JSP is that the
> syntax is more natural,
> especially for things
I think we're going with what's in CVS unless there's bugs...
> -Original Message-
> From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
>
>
ve? (from what I understand, this is what's in CVS right
now).
OR something else?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Ho
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Param directive
Hani Suleiman
Hani Suleiman wrote:
+1, the valuestack is a neat thing and all that, but having random
pushs/pops happen in UI tags of all things just feels wrong.
Agreed. However, I'm unclear why pushes and pops are required though.
#foreach( $number in $person.phoneNumbers )
$stack.push($number)
#bo
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [OS-webwork] Param directive
+1, the valuestack is a neat thing and all that, but having random
pushs/pops happen in UI tags of all things just feels wrong.
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
> My biggest problem with this is that it basically eliminates any advantage
> to u
D] On Behalf Of Fred
Lamuette
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
Here is the different point of view. I personnaly think the push/pop actions
are NOT a hack.
Either you have a WW2 approach or a Velocity one. I think we are in the
03 2:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
>what if in your example you needed 2 objects to be avaiable in your
>Component?
double push
>would a be needed?
???
Richard HALLIER
Chef de projet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
01.40.12.41.52
www.uniclick.org
UNICLICK
---
ework, but if it doesn't need to get involved, it shouldn't.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred
Lamuette
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
Here is the differen
That would be fine by me. Being able to set the default would be especially
nice.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred
Lamuette
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
I
ED] la part de
Francisco Hernandez
Envoye : mardi 18 novembre 2003 11:21
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [OS-webwork] Param directive
what if in your example you needed 2 objects to be avaiable in your
Component?
would a be needed?
Fred Lamuette wrote:
> Here is the different point of v
ICK
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Drew McAuliffe
Envoye : mardi 18 novembre 2003 00:15
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
As I said in another reply, the biggest problem is that you can't use an
object v
Fred Lamuette wrote:
I dont think two #param directives are a good idea.
What about a default behaviour defined in the webwork.properties ? With an
attribute in param tag to override the default, it would be nice.
This is now done in CVS. The param supports an optional eval attribute.
If eval i
Envoye : mardi 18 novembre 2003 00:15
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
As I said in another reply, the biggest problem is that you can't use an
object variable in velocity, since it always gets converted to a string
first. If I have a collection of model objects, and
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Francisco Hernandez
Envoye : mardi 18 novembre 2003 08:33
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [OS-webwork] Param directive
why create another property tag instead of just adding an attribute to
handle escaping (
t: Monday, November 17, 2003 3:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
As I said in another reply, the biggest problem is that you can't use an
object variable in velocity, since it always gets converted to a string
first. If I have a collection of model objects, an
ge-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Drew McAuliffe
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 3:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
As I said in another reply, the biggest problem is that you can't use an
object variable in velocity, since i
t it
forces a manual call to $stack.findValue(). I think that's a fair tradeoff.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred
Lamuette
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Param directive
As
Fred Lamuette wrote:
As far as I am concerned this approach is not the correct one ! I explain my
point of view with an example :
With the latest XWork+WW2 cvs snapshot, you can write a select tag both ways
:
1/
#tag(Select "name='nameValue'" ...) -> in this case, the parameter with
key=name and
As far as I am concerned this approach is not the correct one ! I explain my
point of view with an example :
With the latest XWork+WW2 cvs snapshot, you can write a select tag both ways
:
1/
#tag(Select "name='nameValue'" ...) -> in this case, the parameter with
key=name and value=stack.findValu
I had noticed the behavior before, which was automatically calling
stack.findValue(), and expressed my opinion that this was problematic when
using velocity, especially when trying to use the component tag. The biggest
problem that the former behavior had, that the latest update fixes, is that
I co
I believe some people asked for it to be that way as it's more natural
for a Velocity context... I may be wrong though..
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OS-webwork] Param dir
21 matches
Mail list logo
