Hello,
So I'm stuck. I can't get a working "go to menu" link:
- first try I get in the html page
go to menu"
- second one: I move
from admin.xml to friends.xml and I changed it to
Then I get a valid link as
href="/05_friends_auth/admin/menu?authid=82fe57e7604f0
yes, that seems clear by your example. Nevertheless I am currently
thinking about pros and cons of a repository. Though this has not
been used in your examples I could think of the need for different
One think that's maybe not clear, is that the repository would track
the mappings of Pojo
For my own purposes, I'd like to (for example) be able to define a
boolean attribute for every instance variable/field, namely: is the
field in question user-defined or app-defined ? This info could be
used thruout my app. A separate hierarchy of metadata classes might
enable some pretty cool st
Surely sendmail reeled when thusly spake Geert Bevin:
>
> Traditional method
> ==
I have no problem with the proposed approach.
For my own purposes, I'd want to know if, in the long run,
it might make adding in JDK5 annotations any easier or more
straightforward, or if it migh
Hi Geert,
yes, that seems clear by your example. Nevertheless I am currently
thinking about pros and cons of a repository. Though this has not been
used in your examples I could think of the need for different
validations for one single pojo.
Your default way would either be the current way
I think this is fine. While I don't know if I would ever use it (I
suspect I would) I think it fills a void.
I think the implementation that Geert suggested is perfect (except
that his POJO extends something, but I'm sure that is a typo).
What would you do to perform the mapping between the
Hi Pierre,
welcome!
Feel free to ask any questions you have, we're here to help. :-)
I haven't thought of using aspects for this, it could be an
interesting idea. However, I'm not sure it's appropriate for this use-
case. There is no real cross-concerns logic to be added. Constraints
are a
On 30-okt-05, at 18:35, JR Boyens wrote:
I think this is fine. While I don't know if I would ever use it (I
suspect I would) I think it fills a void.
I think the implementation that Geert suggested is perfect (except
that his POJO extends something, but I'm sure that is a typo).
Blergh,
I think this is fine. While I don't know if I would ever use it (I suspect I would) I think it fills a void.
I think the implementation that Geert suggested is perfect (except that
his POJO extends something, but I'm sure that is a typo).On 10/30/05, Geert Bevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I sai
Hello,
I'm a newcomer who try to run the examples (atm I'm stuck with chapter
8; may be my next email ;-)), but may I suggest :
- to keep an option with Rife as it is,
- to add an option "Rife with AOP", and use for example Spring
capabilities or even AspectJ
Regards
Pierre
Geert Bevin
As I said to Keith, this would be an additional way of specifying the
constraints.
The main reasons are:
* allow for migration of existing POJOs models towards RIFE (Spring,
Hibernate, ...)
* create POJOs in a RIFE application that are framework-independent
and can be used together with oth
This would be optional, the current way would still be supported.
Do you have a better solution to add constraints to existing POJOs
that can't or shouldn't be modified?
On 30-okt-05, at 16:50, Keith Lea wrote:
I think requiring 2 classes for each bean sucks. I know it won't be
required, b
Indeed, splitting this information into too many classes may result in
confusion instead of ease of use. Why not do something like
WindowListener and WindowAdapter in java? So having a default class if
interface implementation is not simple enough? Or maybe a
Wrapper/Delegator could be added.
I think requiring 2 classes for each bean sucks. I know it won't be
required, but I think even allowing you to do it this way is
encouraging complicated, verbose, hard to maintain code.
On Oct 30, 2005, at 3:47 AM, Geert Bevin wrote:
Hi everyone,
currently, the persistence engine requires
Hi everyone,
currently, the persistence engine requires your POJOs to implement
the Constrained and Validated interface, which can be quite a burden
if you don't extend the CmfValidation or Validation base classes. I
was thus thinking of adding support for declaring all the meta-data
in a
Geert,
Thanks for the clarification.
Emmanuel
On 10/29/05, Geert Bevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> it really is as you prefer. Initially I used to never use spaces and
> use underscores instead, out of habit. However, I suddenly remembered
> that the exit names can be anything,
16 matches
Mail list logo
