Agreed, this is something that will be addressed with the guidelines doc
coming shortly.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Maurice C. Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Joseph Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] boxed
, at 05:45 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
I'd say it'd be pretty easy to add two new tags as well. And I still
think
this is a big deal out of nothing. But I guess this all comes back to
needing a defined way to propose changes to projects. Ideally, there
should
be some discussion
Way to go Maurice!
- Original Message -
From: Maurice C. Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:06 AM
Subject: [OS-webwork] WebWork 1.3
All,
I think we need to put together a 1.3 release sometime within the next
month or so. The focus of
http://jbeans.org/ for this stuff... It looks
pretty cool.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:plightbo;cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Drew Davidson
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl status
Followup:
Drew Davidson pointed
Maybe we should set up a Wiki at wiki.opensymphony.com?
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] WebWork CookBook
In light of my recent 'tips' emails, I
Yup... you can have the best of both worlds:
1) good documentation
2) an easy way to use the basic features
2) powerful features that don't complicate #1 or #2
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday,
snip
Why not just provide two ServletDispatchers? One that works the way
everything does now (but just reading views.properties) and another that
reads a mapping file that maps path to WebWork alias/action:
mapping.properties:
/secure/Foo.action=Foo
views.properties
Foo.action=Foo
This could
snip
Yup, as documentation grows and gets better, we should also think about
having an OpenSymphony Wiki that create a living community as well. Also, as
Joe mentioned, why not take our own medicine and make the OS website use
WebWork and be more interactive? So.. this is a call for anyone out
: Configuration (was RE: [OS-webwork] Webwork Security Requirements)
What are the current thoughts on moving to one form of configuration
(i.e. getting rid of views.properties and just using actions.xml)?
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:plightbo;cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, November
Exactly my point, you can make the configuration method support a lot of
power but only require simple configuration.
Now, multiple config files could possibly confuse users, no doubt about
that. I don't think I'd like that. Good thing that configuration is
pluggable, so any kind of config is
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
shouldn't
Blah First off, to JoeO's whole action as a view stuff... I have
no idea what that's all about, sorry :)
Maurice also treated my original example (as to why action params are
needed) not how I intended and somehow the SendEmail action become some
wacky view stuff. That's not what I
Only heated cuz you lit the fire ;) J/K...
Matt told me to do it, so I did. All my modules (OSCore, OSWorkflow, OSUser,
and PropertySet -- and soon Clickstream) use commons-logging now as well.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WebWork [EMAIL
What's surreal is that you still don't see all the stuff I'm doing with
WebWork. My usages, as I'm sure you can admit, are very unique. I doubt
there is a single person out there that is doing what I'm doing. With that
said, I also used to use WebWork like you and the rest of the world did. I
see
FWIW, from the discussions I've seen so far between the two of you,
Maurice has my vote on all counts.
Great. What is the reason for that?
Also, just to make it totally clear, I've used WebWork for a long time
and I
have used the techniques that you and everyone else on this list uses.
Anders has had a good point all along. ww:property/ is really doing two
jobs: push and print. We are all OK with it because we're used to it. But
his post below of course looks completely silly... why would you want
ww:property/ to do push, print, AND include. That's just silly, right?
Well, now
' parameter that automatically highlights them, etc etc.
Quoting Patrick Lightbody [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anders has had a good point all along. ww:property/ is really doing
two
jobs: push and print. We are all OK with it because we're used to it.
But
his post below of course looks completely silly
: Re: [OS-webwork] Callback after view is rendered
Yep, I like that option :)
Errors occurring in the JSP would also have to point to RollbackTx.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Lightbody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject
Honestly, I'm with Chris here.
Hani, you have no right to vote something down if you don't even know the
issues involved. None what-so-ever.
Hani, you also said: Excellent! A great way of ensuring nobody is able to
use webwork without first going through lots of docs. Umm.. wasn't the
solution
Oh, and everyone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe this how the
votes stack up (and of course, most of the +1 crew doesn't really have real
voting power, but I think it's still important to remember). Also, I've put
stars next to regular contributors, so we can see who does have voting
: Property tag (beating the decomposed horse)
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
You might not like Anders for the changes he made without asking, but
this
this stubbornness is pretty sickening.
Patrick, this is nothing personal. This is a logistical decision.
1) Changing the behavior
So the argument that a tag named property is less intuitive than two tags
named push and print is a bad one?
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Property tag (beating
I am a WebWork user. I use the PropertyTag. Changing the behaviour of
the PropertyTag hurts me.
Better?
Likewise for me (except the opposite) :)
2) Adding addional tags makes the PropertyTag (and the taglibs as a
whole) more confusing, not less.
Adding tags that are simple and
Maurice, I'll commit to getting the GD stuff fixed up (such as properly
sending out error messages to the UI) this week.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Maurice C. Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:57 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] Final stretch.
My two (or three) cents:
the names aren't very important right now, as this stuff is all post-1.3 for
now. My votes would be:
-out or print (ww:out value=foo/bar/)
-push (ww:push value=fooww:out value=bar//ww:push)
-set (ww:set value=foo/bar id=blah/ ww:out value=@blah/)
-Pat
!
After reading lots of names, print, push and set all seem intuitively
to
do the right things?
Print a variable
Push a variable on to the stack
Set a variable in another context
No?
-mike
On 13/11/02 7:15 AM, Patrick Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned
the
words:
My two
it available as the root for the current scope.
Sounds a lot like chroot to me, but I don't think I like that as a tag
name.
--Erik
Set a variable in another context
No?
-mike
On 13/11/02 7:15 AM, Patrick Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
My two (or three) cents
? Should a path be walked and all the parts be pushed to the stack?
That would result in a lot of overhead if one did ww:property
value=foo/bar/boo/far/for/bor
Again, all post 1.3 stuff. For now I'm trying to recreate this ww:include
bug.
--Erik
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Patrick Lightbody wrote
Rob,
Yes, with action aliasing you can give the same _class_ two different action
names and each one can have it's own success, error, and input views.
FooA.action=Foo
FooA.success=as.jsp
FooA.error=ae.jsp
FooB.action=Foo
FooB.success=bs.jsp
FooB.error=be.jsp
- Original Message -
From:
Your action needs to implement CommandDriven.
- Original Message -
From: Java Lamer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: [OS-webwork] Webwork 1.2.1 Default Action help
Scott,
I did just that but it still going right through
Jason,
Could you go ahead and open a case in JIRA and attach your code as well?
I'll be sure to get in in CVS and included in the next release if you can do
that.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:42
Mr. Lamer,
I tend to write smaller actions and then chain them together. Others tend to
write an action, then another action that extends that action, and so-on.
It's really a matter of personal preference I suppose.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Java Lamer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
OK, well since Maurice bowed out, and Matt has been MIA (I know you're out
there Matt, you can't hide forever!), we need a new owner/maintainer for
WebWork. I'd volunteer to do it myself, but being that I'm the current owner
for OSCore, OSUser, PropertySet, Clickstream, and OSWorkflow -- and that
advantages while I don't see any inherit problems with using XML (except
for
many it'll take a little longer to setup, but this won't be a problem).
Please let me know your thoughts.
Ken
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Lightbody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
Sitemesh can decorate HTML files, so why the jsp extension? The OSWorkflow
docs are all HTML. I really do think that HTML docs are the best bet. Makes
our life real simple -- plus including all the docbook crap in the CVS build
is never fun.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Ken Egervari
PS That said, he who wants to write the documentation gets to choose how
it
is done.
Amen to that! Ken, please don't take any of our (my) comments as a negative
thing, I'm just giving you alternate feelings about various formats. But
yes, at the end of the day, it's all up to you -- you're the
This is something that should be remedied (the lesser support for Velocity
in WebWork, in terms of tags, is so easy to fix). I'll make sure this is
added to XWork as well (by Christmas!). Can someone send me the code (don't
Cc the list) for their homegrown velocity tags? Chris?
-Pat
-
bit. I liked the xdoc format, however and was planning on using that
regardless.
Ken,
Not sure if we are going to use Maven (Mike likes it, Rickard doesn't, I
sorta-like-it-sorta-hate-it). I'm sure everyone else out there falls
somewhere in one of those three categories. BUT, since you're
enough, overall
consensus seems to be a yes to xdocs, and an no to maven. The very fact
that the 'simple mavenising' posted on here says that one has to get
maven out of cvs is a winning argument against using it ;)
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 05:42 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote
FYI: I have been trying to mavenize OSCore in attempt to see if it's worth
all the fuss. I must say, I'm not too impressed. I finally got it to build
oscore's jar file correctly, but not after quite a wrestling match. And now
the site won't generate since the latest version of maven from CVS HEAD
I'm a slacker, I didn't get in the webtable stuff I was supposed to. I'll
put it in today.
- Original Message -
From: matt baldree [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:56 AM
Subject: [OS-webwork] 1.3 RC1 Release
WW 1.3 RC1 has been released. I want
Cameron,
ActionSupport didn't have setters for the error Map or the errorMessage
List. This has been resolved in CVS and version 1.3. Without setters, the
error messages wouldn't chain together. I had this problem a couple days ago
and fixed it :)
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Cameron
/developer.
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 11:11 AM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
I think we should standardize the OpenSymphony build process. Here is
my
first cut at it, please comment:
- attached is a build script for OSCore, but as you can see, it's very
generic. We should use
, December 17, 2002, at 11:31 AM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
If we don't include ant but instead tell people to download ant, I can
promise you that the mavenites will be clamoring for maven builds
instead,
since downloading maven or downloading ant are parallels. Besides,
build.xml
, December 17, 2002 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensymphony-developers] Re: [OS-webwork] OpenSymphony build
process
Hello,
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
If we don't include ant but instead tell people to download ant, I can
promise you that the mavenites will be clamoring for maven builds
instead
OK, I'm making an executive decision: Ant will be included with the builds.
And in case you didn't know, the WebWork build works this way. End of issue,
since it's not a big issue, no matter how much people want to make it seem
like it is. Can you all please go back and look at the rest of the
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 configuration
I noticed the roadmap for
Yes, the plan is to use Ognl. It had just as good of performance and it does
better type conversion for both setters and getters. Examples are in CVS
already at sandbox/xwork, and a working system will be in place in a couple
days.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Blake Day [EMAIL
Message -
From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork in CVS
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
OK, as you may have seen, XWork is in the sandbox CVS module. I'd like
you
all to take a look at it and let me
: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
You can find more about the syntax at www.ognl.org, but here are some
examples compared to WebWork:
Ognl -- WebWork
name -- name :)
person.name -- person/name
map[blah] -- map['blah']
How
, December 28, 2002 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL
I guess I'd like to see the actual expression used:
ww:property value=foo.bar / (calls foo.getBar(), or...)
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Rickard Öberg wrote:
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
You can find more
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
You can find more about the syntax at www.ognl.org, but here are some
examples compared to WebWork:
Ognl -- WebWork
name
Yes, I assume you could do that as well, though I think that would be pretty
confusing, since expressions in view layers (JSP, velocity) tend to be
static in nature, so I doubt [someInt].someVal would ever crop up.
As for using the other expression language, yes, Ognl supports any kind of
PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL
On Sunday, December 29, 2002, at 10:20 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
However, by using Ognl we gain not having to maintian our own EL and a
whole
bunch of speed, as well as more powerful features (Ognl can even do
lamba
, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork source
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
OK, sure, let's talk about it it more (or maybe I'll piggyback on to the
massive rethink thread!).
Do that.
The XML config is verbose, and it could be cleaned up a bit. It was a
first
attempt to just show
Yeah, doesn't yet, but the plan is to add that in soon. Tonight I'll make
the code quicker and then start incorporating Rickards ideas.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:07 PM
By all means, go for it!
- Original Message -
From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Rethink
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Yeah, doesn't yet, but the plan is to add that in soon. Tonight I'll
make
This sounds scary to me -- I'm not entirely convinced that URLs with .action
in them are terribly bad. I do have cases where 4 different actions use that
same SUCCESS view:
ShowDocumentListA.success = doc_list.jsp
ShowDocumentListB.success = doc_list.jsp
ShowDocumentListC.success = doc_list.jsp
: [OS-webwork] Rethink
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Great! So we can expect a finished product by Friday? :)
Friday? *yawn* :-)
Glad to have you on board with this. Of course, I'll be around to help
in
any way possible -- just gimme a holler.
Will do. I'm afraid I'm gonna thrash around
What is missing from this example currently is commands. Any ideas are
welcome here. One option is to have the action declaration look like this:
action name=fooDefault class=SimpleAction.doDefault
interceptors-ref name=default/
result name=success view=bar.action/
/action
i.e.
, but then the burdon is on
the HTML/JSP writers and not the application designer.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action configuration XML [Commands]
Patrick Lightbody
that are
similar (same class) but behave differently based on settings.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Rickard Ã-berg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action configuration XML [Commands]
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
See, I
I believe Rickard has made it clear both will be available.
- Original Message -
From: boxed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Pretty much, yes. There's no real trouble with allowing .action
OK, so we've had quite a bit of communication on the list in the last few
days, and to be honest, I'm having a hard time keeping up with it all. I
mean, all the ideas and interest is great, but let's take a step at a time.
Remember, the CVS module name is sandbox, nothing is golden in there.
I use #2 quite a bit, and I'm not in any sort of portlet environment. I just
have multiple ww:action tags in my JSPs.
- Original Message -
From: Hai Pham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation
can much more
easily
keep / discard them?
-mike
On 3/1/03 8:08 AM, Patrick Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
OK, so we've had quite a bit of communication on the list in the last
few
days, and to be honest, I'm having a hard time keeping up with it all. I
mean, all
Rickard,
You said it yourself, you're geared toward a state-machine-type of
development. Well I am too, actually... heavily influenced by the OSWorkflow
statemachine (I see large parallels between OSWF and WW -- especially with
chaining). My point here is that I think you should stay around. With
to start seeing this stuff next week sometime after I,
too,
get back to my fast internet :)
Congrats on the new stuff, Pat.
--Erik
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Just letting you guys know that I was a day behind my prediction on
getting
a working XWork in to CVS
Kirk... I'll try to duplicate the error you are giving... though it seems
very strange. I'm using 1.3 (latest from CVS) with no trouble at all. If you
want to see what has changed, check out the changelog on
http://jira.opensymphony.com
The main change you'd have to worry about is:
- action
Pardon me for my ignorance... but could you possibly provide a high level
detail of what Jasper Reports is, specifically how it integrates in with WW?
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January
So anyway, I'm just going to disregard the Documentation thread and start
a thread that is actually useful :)
(Though, Ken, we're still hoping your willing to do some Doc work!)
So besides Action Chaining, Rickard made a good point that interceptors is
very important as well. I'd like to talk
InterceptorChain(action,
interceptors);
result = interceptorChain.doInterceptor();
Anyway, that's what I've been working on... Thoughts?
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:24 AM
To: os-ww
Subject: [OS
Not sure if this is really a WebWork problem (the stack traces in the file
attached all show WW stuff, but they aren't locking there), but I'm getting
lockups in Orion. Basically, it appears that the orion classloader is being
locked on to and never let go (though I could't figure out why that
For those who want to use EJB's to do the tx demaraction, you'd simply
remove the tx interceptor.
Or, another way to put what Rickard said is:
For those who don't want to use EJB's to do the tx demarcation, you'd simply
add the tx interceptor. ;)
No, of course not. Transactions are just a good base case because they are a
type of interceptor that works on both sides of the action (before and
after) and behavior can change based on possible configurations, changes in
the action contex, etc.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Hani
Rickard,
These are great, I've placed them on the Wiki (Which is now linked from the
main site, yay!).
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Rickard Ã-berg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WebWork [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: [OS-webwork] XWork: core concepts
All,
In effort to ditch the servlet paradigm, any thoughts on changing
ActionContext from being a ThreadLocal to just a normal Map? I've got some
code I can commit to CVS if you'd like to see how it would work.
-Pat
---
This SF.NET email is
A summary of the changes (read below for more):
* Removed ActionContext ThreadLocal in favor of a simple context Map
* Modified View, Action, and InterceptorChain interfaces/objects to have
access to the context Map
* Removed ActionFactory entirely in favor of interceptors
* Removed
would any of the context
stuff work without it?
On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:56 AM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
In effort to ditch the servlet paradigm, any thoughts on changing
ActionContext from being a ThreadLocal to just a normal Map? I've got
some
code I can commit to CVS
10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Getting rid of thread locals
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
ThreadLocal implies that you always have a single thread throughout the
lifecycle of the action (prepare, execute, print results). This is true
for
a servlet container (single thread/request), but not so
I've added Joe Walnes' Component stuff and modified it to fit in the
Interceptor framework. It's really cool. I recommend that you check out the
sources and run the example-war target. As you can see, each time you
reload, the counter will increment. The cool thing is that if you look at
the code
Amen (great point abot JMS, btw)! This is _sandbox_, PLEASE everyone stop
making things so dramatic. All I'm doing is putting things in there for us
to discuss and toy with. Then we talk. That's the idea: Write, talk, write
some more. Not write, talk, abandon project ;)
-Pat
- Original
Yup, Kirk's option here is the best way to get immediate performance
improvements. I've made a very generic selectfastmap.jsp template for
large lists of Map objects. Works much faster.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Kirk Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday,
Well, from my part, I'll toy with getting it in sandbox right away.
- Original Message -
From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Hidden token
Vedovato Paolo wrote:
that is a very important feature
+1 as well.
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] RC2?
I'd vote for new features (small, well tested ones) going into RC2...
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kelley
Message-
From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Scope for 1.4
Yup, Kirk's option here is the best way to get immediate performance
improvements. I've made a very generic
+1 :)
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] Xwork 1.0 and Webwork 2.0 Mission Statements
Here's a first pass at mission statements for Xwork 1.0 and Webwork 2.0.
Hopefully this
I believe that rewriting it to work for Lists would be just fine. The main
thing it is doing is essentially _skipping_ all the EL stuff, which I
believe is OK since templates are only usually edited once.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Peter Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
I've got a very rough FilterDispatcher in WebWork sandbox (2.0). If works
like this:
if you request /success.jsp, it'll look up to see if /success.jsp is
used as a result of any action. The logic is:
- first try the success result
- then try the input result
- then try any result if there is one
]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork 2.0: FilterDispatcher?
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
snippetysnap
What do you think? Rickard, would this work for you? Everyone else,
would
this work for YOU? ;)
Works for me! :-)
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork 2.0: FilterDispatcher?
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
snippetysnap
What do you think? Rickard, would this work for you? Everyone else,
would
this work for YOU? ;)
Works for me! :-)
/Rickard
I know that the change from .. to [1] has been quite a sticky point for
some, so I have some other proposals, let me know what you think:
The CompoundRoot object will _always_ be the foundation for the
OgnlValueStack. I added a method peek() to it so that we could do:
ww:push value=counter
It is possible, but it involves basicacally writing at least _part_ of our
own EL using JavaCC. I'll ask the Ognl guys more about it today.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:19 AM
Subject: RE:
Working on that right now :)
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Erik Beeson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl: peek(), up(), and down()
-1
This seems like an ugly hack, I think
applied or else you'll loose the application of filters further down the
chain. I don't think this is too bad though, since we can just -clearly-
document that the FilterDispatcher (if you want to use it) must be applied
last.
Thoughts?
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Lightbody
As I've mentioned in the past, I wanted to explore using SiteMesh to power
the UI taglibs, at least for JSP. I know Rickard threw out the idea of using
velocity for all taglibs (regardless if your view is JSP), so what I'd like
to see happen is this:
1) I'll commit my sitemesh integration stuff
OK, I've commited them. Try it out and let's have some feedback!
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Lightbody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: os-ww [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:57 AM
Subject: [OS-webwork] Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
As I've mentioned in the past, I
+1
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux]
See
http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/XWork+1.0+Mission+Statement
And
I think that two jars is a good middle ground:
xwork-1.0.jar
webwork-2.0.jar
This is what we've been planning on all along.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Partition
on average 40 -seconds-. When using velocity under the same
test, the final 20 requests took on average 1.4 seconds. That's a
scalability factor of about 30X!
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Lightbody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: os-ww [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003
1 - 100 of 364 matches
Mail list logo
