Again, that age old questionwhy? Why this hatred of the unloved and
unappreciate if/iterator tags? What have they ever done to you?
Quoting boxed [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've had a most enlightening conversation on irc recently. A friend of mine
pointed out that property tag and iterator tag
of people not familiar with WebWork. So a compromise would
be to keep ww:property but add ww:push and ww:print.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] ui:hidden and ui:submit
+1 from me too
Quoting Vedovato Paolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1 to change the behaviour in 1.3
-Paolo
-Original Message-
From: Maurice C. Parker [mailto:maurice;vineyardenterprise.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] JIRA
You could have all your actions extend a base class, which has a getContextPath
() method, or use request/contextPath
Quoting Justen Stepka [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Morning,
Currently I have the following in my JSP code...
link rel=stylesheet type=text/css media=screen
I've written a custom ActionFactory which reloads action dynamically.
In effect, this means you can change the code for your actions,
compile, and hit refresh and see the changes. I'd like to know if
there's any interest in adding this to core webwork, knowing that it
has a number of
...documentation!
I've just checked in new and enhanced documentation for PropertyTag,
kindly submitted by Geoff Carruthers (who did put his money where his
mouth is, as told, and wrote docs). I'd appreciate it others could have
a look and provide feedback, since Geoff has said he's willing to
The docs are NOT original pulled out of thin air type docs. They're
just a consolidation of what you, Mike, and various others have
written. Feel free to plaster your name and credits wherever you feel
is appropriate. In future I'll try to remember to discourage anyone who
wants to write
:
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 05:50 PM, Hani Suleiman wrote:
...documentation!
LOL. What a loaded subject. :-)
Hey, I was wondering what you guys thought about moving all the docs
into the new Wiki, where it would be easier for people to update.
They might stay more current that way
Excellent! A great way of ensuring nobody is able to use webwork without first
going through lots of docs.
Quoting boxed [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Attached to this email I have the code for the following tags: ContextTag,
FocusTag, PopTag, PushTag and PrintTag. These do what PropertyTag does
today
Exactly. I was being sarcastic
Quoting Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hani Suleiman wrote:
Excellent! A great way of ensuring nobody is able to use webwork
without first
going through lots of docs.
But that seems to defy the idea of WebWork being easy to use, doesn't
the current ever-so-transparent ww:property tag that
everyone
just understands without any explanation.
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:hani;formicary.net]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Property tag (beating the decomposed horse
, but this
this stubbornness is pretty sickening.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Property tag (beating the decomposed horse)
It's a different approach I suppose
Good catch. Committed.
Quoting boxed [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Index: BeanUtil.java
===
RCS file:
/cvsroot/opensymphony/webwork/src/main/webwork/util/BeanUtil.java,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -r1.29 BeanUtil.java
121c121
will listen to people, of if those in charge are
just
going to be doing what they please no matter what everyone else asks of
them.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re
How about just 'out' for print? To go along with out.println etc.
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 04:57 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
I'm a little uncomfortable with the names as they currently stand too.
Perhaps the 'context' tag could be renamed 'expose', and then 'focus'
could
become
Eric would get my vote, as someone who has (so far) been able to resist
from jumping in on any flamefests, and well as being able to maintain a
civil and results-oriented approach.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 05:04 PM, Erik Beeson wrote:
I'd be happy to get more involved in the first
this task on for each release, which is very rare. The added
bonus
of having a totally self-sustained CVS module is very appealing.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensymphony
N!
The discussion on here has been VERY pleasant to see, a lot of smart
things said and I felt that real progress was being made. Please ignore
the idiots on IRC. It's a little boys club where if you don't want to
play with them they pout and sulk. Don't make the mistake of assuming
that
I have to say, I really do think that adding tx on this level is a bad idea. For
one thing, webwork is NOT a tx system, whatever it talks to should provide
whatever tx support you require. Reinventing the wheel by handling the tx on
this level seemsa waste of effort (vendors have already spent
Quoting Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hani Suleiman wrote:
Well, we're not talking about writing a tx system here, just providing
the calls to begin/commit/rollback. And that's definitely a good idea to
put here, especially if you're doing a straight servlets/db application,
i.e
Err, how is ThreadLocal servlet related? How 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
Making unnecessary changes, IMHO, is definitely 'making it unpleasant'.
While I see that backward compatibility is too hard to keep (or so I'm
told) given all that people want xwork to be, I really dislike the
approach of change for changes sake. I deliberately avoided the very
early versions
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:24 AM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
So, given all of this, my resignation from XWork still holds. The
requirements that have been voiced the last few days are not mine, and
I don't think they're compatible with my goals, at least not without
serious compromises
Only after the first try. I don't think slapping on oscache is the
solution, as it just hides the performance problem (of course, adding
oscache is always a good idea, but making that first hit faster would
also be a good idea)
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Mike Cannon-Brookes
Are interceptors really that different from filters? If they are very
different, then I'm missing something and you can ignore the rest of this
email...
However, if they aren't that different, then I believe that they are few cases
where a interceptor would be required instead of a filter.
is a
royal pain in the ass to define!)
Mike
On 13/1/03 10:45 PM, Hani Suleiman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Are interceptors really that different from filters? If they are very
different, then I'm missing something and you can ignore the rest of this
email...
However
Quoting Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I do mean servlet filters.
How the hell do they work outside the web environment mate? :)
They don't!
I want the ability to run some code before / after defined actions.
That would be awesomely useful, for the reasons you mentioned
For people using orion, or any other appserver that doesn't
automatically reload non-servlet classes in WEB-INF/classes, I've
written an action reloader that reloads action classes if they're
modified.
More details at: http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/fate
Feedback appreciated!
Hani
I think the default should be how it is now, since after the last change, people
have on the whole adapter their code to the new behaviour.
Quoting Dick Zetterberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Here is a suggestion for a change to the URLTag for 1.3. It uses a new
attribute includeParams to determine
How would you handle i18n support, and parametrised messages?
Eg, if you wanted '${0} is an invalid name' as your message
Quoting Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I checked a new validation framework into Xwork this morning that I got
running last night. It's based on some ideas like runtime
PROTECTED]:
Is there a way to get the actions.xml to reload too?
Thanks,
Justen Stepka
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:58 PM
Subject: [OS-webwork] Action reloading
For people using orion
-1
This seems like an ugly hack, I think it's especially important at this stage of
dev to make things as hack-free as possible. Wouldn't it be possible to talk to
the ognl guys and get info from them on how to best support our syntax?
Quoting Erik Beeson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Converting .. to
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action reloading
This does seem possibly currently by plugging in a bunch of custom
*Configuration classes. I'll try and work
Looking over the *Configuration framework, it looks like keys that aren't found
result in a IllegalArgumentException being thrown.
Now, the DelegatingConfiguration goes through all configurations when trying to
find any named property. This means that there are a *lot* of getString calls to
each
I like webwork head cvs, and want to see it keep moving forward. We can tag a
release (1.3) anytime now, really. Only thing that perhaps needs doing is
updating some of the docs, and having decent release notes. xwork is still
sandbox, and is nowhere near production worthy (right?) and I'd much
On the contrary, that makes it perfect for OS! ;)
Quoting Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Francois Beauregard wrote:
A few developers here have used freemarker a little while ago and loved
it.
It seems to be a very good alternative to velocity.
Since it worked for WebWork and after
A flamewar wouldn't be complete without a few kindlings thrown in by me, so herw
goes...
Do you think I'm the only guy around who doesn't like it when people
spread disinformation about him behind his back? Other than that, do
you think that *I* have any interest in showing up on a webwork
Alright. EVERYONE JUST IGNORE HIM. That way he gets to have the last
word and will go away. I realise of course that he'll need to respond
to this message, but after that, everyone resist the urge so we can
bury this more embarassing than usual thread.
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 01:52
Yep, very very useful
On Sunday, February 9, 2003, at 01:15 AM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
I think this is the best feature I've seen in WW2 - I would use it
instantly
in about 50 places :)
-mike
On 9/2/03 4:56 PM, Patrick Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Just put in a dinky
Can it be made to work with properties files (again, for those of us
with huge internationalised apps), or does everything have to be moved
to xml files?
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 10:41 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
I started building one. The consensus at the design meeting last week
was
You need to add in some IE specific hacks to get IE to show the content
using the acrobat plugin. One issue is that IE will send the request 3
times, and you need to determine which you should respond to with the
actual pdf content.
In the servlet, check the user-agent. If it's 'contype', then
what servlet engine are you using? It has only been tested under orion,
and it relies on the servlet engine having a decent classloader impl.
Also, where are your action classes? Are they under WEB-INF/classes, or
somewhere else?
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 01:06 AM, Cameron Braid wrote:
Eww, what a horrible name, ProgrammableConfiguration! How about
ModifiableConfiguration? DynamicConfiguration? SettableConfiguration?
On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 08:27 AM, Jason Carreira wrote:
I checked in the first pass at programmatic configuration. The way it
works is that any
Most people seem to be in agreement that velocity templates are at
least an order of magnitude faster that jsp pages, which to me seems a
bit...odd. So I was wondering if anyone has good (small) examples of
this being the case. Webwork examples don't count as good examples
because they involve
Alright, so based on the feedback so far, the consensus seems to be:
webwork jsp UI tags are much slower than velocity equivalents. So the
culprit seems to be the webwork UI tags, not jsp itself.
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 12:13 PM, boxed wrote:
scriptlets will probably be almost as fast,
(Map) iterating across the keyset and not the
entryset, and few ugly parsing issue that make it hard to do webwork's
funky loosely-typed syntax easily.
Cheers,
Scott
Hani Suleiman wrote:
Alright, so based on the feedback so far, the consensus seems to be:
webwork jsp UI tags are much slower than
Uh, I realise this is a surprising suggestion...but did you try reading
the docs? Crazy as it sounds, it might help.
On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 06:20 AM, Hariharan wrote:
Hi
I would like to know in-depth about the Framework of Webwork.Pls
explain about the
Webwork Model Components.
getRealPath is very bad, what's so wrong with
servletContext.getResource() though?
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 06:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The hardest problem with that is that you can't use
context.getRealPath() to get the location of WEB-INF in an unpacked war
config (per servlet
+1 from me, based on him doing a lot of wiki docs for osworkflow.
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 09:52 PM, Pat Lightbody wrote:
After going through a bunch of open issues in JIRA, I've noticed that
Cameron Braid has provided a LOT of patches for XWork and WebWork. His
involvement on the mailing
Nor should you, to be honest. You're trying to jam a square peg into a
round hole. Yes, you can get pretty far, but in the end, a user will
get an email with a link, and will click on it and boom, their browser
window with all your lovely javascript is now replaced. Or maybe the
user gets
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
We're just glad to have you... Next we'll convert Matt Raible, then
we'll teach Craig McClanahan the error of his ways... LOL
All that'd be left to do after that is get him to drop the devil-spawn
abomination sometimes knows as JSF,
, to
needlessly tie Actions to Xwork, when they can really just be POJO's
with no-arg methods returning a String.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
I
justification, IMO,
to
needlessly tie Actions to Xwork, when they can really just be POJO's
with no-arg methods returning a String.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork
It seems to be down, along with the wiki and jira for opensymphony.
Hopefully they'll all be restored in the next couple of days.
However, I think this highlights one of the problems with having a wiki
be the definitive source for documentation. Picture life a couple of
months from now,
Or just roll your own!
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 10:24 AM, Jason Carreira wrote:
I'm starting a list of requirements for an IoC container in Xwork.
Here's what I've got so far:
1) Ability to have nested component scopes (Application - HTTP Session
- HTTP Request - Action Invocation)
2)
, 2003, at 10:37 AM, Jason Carreira wrote:
We already had our own... But should I take this as you volunteering?
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 10:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Xwork IoC requirements
nothing to do with sourceforge
Mathias Bogaert said:
I'm sorry, *move*? Did we agree on that? Are we moving the entire OS
site there?
Mathias
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork
,
Lars
Mathias Bogaert said:
I'm sorry, *move*? Did we agree on that? Are we moving the entire OS
site there?
Mathias
- Original Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Sourceforge CVS down all
Message -
From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Sourceforge CVS down all the time?
It really is down that often. I've just moved the osworkflow CVS to
java.net, oscache is moving in the next day or so too. Once
is junit.jar in anthome/lib?
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 10:41 PM, Cameron Braid wrote:
I think I am having one of those damn I am so stuipd days.
I can't seem to get the ant test target to run for webwork or xwork.
It is so strange, because the junit jar is there ...
Running :
ant
Argh!
Am I the only one who finds this a bit...odd?
The whole point of the validation framework is that it removes the
validation from the code, and makes it a separate concern specified in
an external xml file.
Now this xdoclet module puts the validation right back in the source,
with the
Erik Hatcher said:
Why folks need to make validation so dynamic I still have yet to
understand. If my forms change, validation changes. They are
intimately tied in the applications I've been working on. I certainly
am not so close-minded to think that my apps are generically
On the other hand, webwork has been heavily profiled and optimised, ww2
has not (and I expect a fully optimised release is probably not
something that'll happen soon). Webwork1 is deployed in quite a few
places, webwork2 is only deployed currently by its own developers.
As Mike said, it all
To all non webwork2 junkies:
Any objections to adding ui:hidden and ui:form tags to webwork 1.3?
---
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Please do. For those who care about seeing progress, I'm sure you care equally
about every single commit.
I'm ok with issue created coming to the list. I've done the same for oswf,
although my reason there is that I'm not the lead developer, but more often than
not am the person actually
Hm, wouldn't a second mailing list make everyone happy? We can create one for
x/webwork at java.net, and have jira cc that list on everything, would that be
ok?
Quoting Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok... If you guys don't think it's good, then we can shut it off... What
about just
+1
I was afraid of speaking up since I'm not involved with ww2 dev, but I've
developed an automatic reflex to just delete any jira messages without reading
them. The creation ones make sense, but if people want to know about a
particular issue, they should just put a watch on it. Not everyone
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
) 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]) penned the
words:
Just to play the devil's advocate, people using full J2EE
, at 10:00 PM, 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...
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
1) I don't see the need to cuss webwork1.
2) The portlet sentence seems rather bizarre to me, a portal
dispatcher? JSR-168 says very little about portals, so a portal
dispatcher is certainly not self-explanatory, to me at any rate.
3) 'Two strategies for handling form submission' seems another
On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 09:56 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XW/WW2 press release text for review
1) I don't see the need to cuss
What I do is have all my actions extend my own ActionSupport subclass. There you
can override getTexts() with whatever mechanism you want (eg, use a different
search mechanism, or get resources from a db, or whatever)
Quoting Samuel Mota [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi guys,
I'm pretty new to Webwork
It's sourceforge, some marketing study probably determined that decent
performance is undercutting their commercial offerings.
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 11:51 PM, Francisco Hernandez wrote:
is it me or does the mailing list take forever to send out emails?
I send out emails to the list
webwork.multipart.maxSize=5000 (for example) in your
webwork.properties file
James Pan said:
Hello,
The fileupload example for WW1.3 has an upper file-size limit of 2MB...
is there a way for me to increase this?? I can't seem to find much
info...
Thank you,
James
While we're throwing around biased opinions, I might as well toss mine
in. If you're talented, you won't have any problems regardless of
qualifications. If you're competing against someone equally
skilled/experienced as someone armed with a CS degree, they'll win out
just based on that.
Of
On behalf of all vaguely interested people who don't care about the nitty
gritty on a day to basis...thankyouthankyouthankyou! ;)
Pat Lightbody said:
I'm turning off the jira notifications to the list... I just CANT keep
up with all this traffic, and these notifications aren't helping,
Yep, send all jira stuff to CVS list, that way everyone is happy. If an
issue is 'mainstream' enough (design decision, future direction, etc) then
it's discussed here.
Jason Carreira said:
How about if we send them to the CVS mailing list on java.net?
-Original Message-
From: Rene
To the original poster: Can you file an issue about this and mail me its
number? It's a reasonable fix that makes life easier, even if it's
socially unacceptable and apparently gives stomach cramps to
inheritance-hating purists ;)
Jason Carreira said:
Whatever your feelings about Inheritance,
Ohdear, poor Hibernate. Foolish Gavin. He seemed like such a nice guy when
I met him too.
Matthew E. Porter said:
While we are on the topic of Hibernate..
Cheers,
matthew
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:08:45 PM US/Central
All mailing lists are on sf.net.
On Sunday, September 21, 2003, at 04:42 PM, Matthew E. Porter wrote:
I don't know if this has been brought up, but which mailing list is
the correct one for WW2 - sf.net or java.net?
Cheers,
matthew
---
ARGH!
We've been over this before. Please do NOT have every new issue sent
here, this is supposed to go to a separate cvs list for those who care.
On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 05:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
everyone can see what the issues are and might see that they're
not the only one seeing this... Only issue creation comes here now, more
notifications go to the cvs list on dev.java.net.
If others disagree, we can remove this list from all notifications.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Hani
Just apply for an observer role in the webwork project.
On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 08:20 PM, Drew McAuliffe wrote:
I'm having problems getting the latest from the new CVS repository.
Neither the anoncvs or the guest/guest logins work. Does anyone have
the
valid guest account name, and can
, the project isn't going to grow very fast.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Hani Suleiman
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] CVS problems
Just apply for an observer role in the webwork project
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Hani Suleiman
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] CVS problems
You go to java.net, sign up, and apply for the observer role at the
webwork project pages.
People who run cvs should definitely NOT be users who are too
We all do!
Having said that, I think before testing our large applications with the
various arm-twisting they do unto webwork to get things just right, a good
starting point would be all the examples and tests that ww1 ships with
Mike Cannon-Brookes said:
Also, if anyone has some 1.3-based
On the bright side, Pat has promised (and in fact, already has it
functional) to have the ww1 valuestack available. As soon as this is
ready, you won't have to use ognl, and portage will be infinitely
easier (not to mention that you'd no longer have to use a joke syntax!)
On Friday, October
Sebastiano Pilla wrote:
At 14.57 31/10/2003, Hani Suleiman wrote:
I don't mind, of course... but now that you mention it, what's the
status of WW 1.3.1? The OS Jira shows that 22 of 56 issues have been
fixed for the 1.3.1 version, and several OS committers are currently
much more focused
Scott Farquhar wrote:
Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote ..
Fine by me. If possible - leaving the source in the current directory (even if it is main) would be best, so as to preserve the file's history.
Yeah definitely, source won't move.
I don't think that there are many testcases
Err, why on earth would you want this in webwork? What's wrong with the
exception handlers you can specify in web.xml, which work exactly as
described below?
On Oct 31, 2003, at 10:18 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
Nope... Interesting idea... Post a Jira issue for it...
-Original Message-
I've started on the cleanup of webwork 1.3 sources. if anyone is
vaguely upset by any of this then please do speak up! This is what I've
done so far:
Moved all jars into directories under lib. We have lib/optional,
lib/view, lib/core, and lib/build.
I've removed the jasper report compilation
I don't mean to open up old wounds, but what exactly was the reasoning
behind deprecating the *Aware in ww 1.3? Would anyone be terribly upset
if they were undeprecated in 1.3.1? Does anyone care?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
Alright then, it can stay deprecated. I'll close the bugs asking for it
to be undeprecated in a day or two, provided nobody complains.
On Nov 1, 2003, at 4:01 PM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Francisco Hernandez wrote:
i believe it was suggested that everyone start using the
ActionContext threadlocal
Well, the deprecation serves as a marker to indicate 'this is not a
recommended approach', sure it'll never go away (nothing deprecated in
the JDK has gone away either), but it's still worth having in if the
official line is that it's a discouraged set of interfaces.
On Nov 1, 2003, at 5:15
I thought there is a clear message there now. I'll go through and
ensure it spells out exactly what should be used.
On Nov 1, 2003, at 6:23 PM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Maybe add somthing to the deprecation messages that suggest what you
should be using instead?
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Hani Suleiman
Right on, reinventing wheels is fun for two kinds of people, the
inventors, and those too blind to see existing wheels.
On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:25 PM, Micha Mosiewicz wrote:
[...]
Then wouldn't it be the invoker's responsibility, rather than the
framework's? I'd say that exceptions should be
Same argument from me as to why this is a bad approach in ww2. It's
reinventing an existing wheel. Sure, it's maybe a bit more convenient to
use than the built-in mechanism in the servlet container, but it's still
stepping on its toes and making things that little bit murkier.
Joseph Ottinger
James Cook wrote:
I thought of a pointless insult. ;-)
We used this pattern in a large application and it worked well. BTW, for
Hani's edification
(http://www.jroller.com/page/fate/20031029#opensymphony_dirty_laundry),
this is not a toy application, but rather a large app that manages
billions
ExceptionAware!
Chris Nokleberg wrote:
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
What I'd thought of was adding an extra method to Action and
ActionSupport. The Action method's signature might look like this:
public String handleException(Throwable t) throws Throwable;
The ActionSupport implementation:
public
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
