hi ,all:
how can I send my questions to all of you ? Could you tell me ? Thanks~~
mqg
- SOUVENIR --- .
| Souvenir of China |
| A Good Place for You |
`--> http://www.souvenirchina.com -'
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
ugust 08, 2003 5:38 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
> Addition of two new actions)
>
>
> I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
>
> [ ] ParameterDispatchAction
> [ ] MappingDispatchAct
--- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
> > and the action would always forward to that forward? In that case,
> > you could count on using the first one.
>
> Just thinking that if an anonymous/default ActionForward were
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
+1
Steve Raeburn wrote:
This is not a general purpose action. It is intended to do just one thing
and that's forward the request to one place. There is deliberately no
flexibility in the action. The flexibility comes from being able to use an
ActionFoward definition.
We wouldn't be dictating anyt
hi ,all:
how can I send my questions to all of you ? Could you tell me ? Thanks~~
mqg
- SOUVENIR --- .
| Souvenir of China |
| A Good Place for You |
`--> http://www.souvenirchina.com -'
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
At 18:18 -0700 8/8/03, Steve Raeburn wrote:
I don't think that you could rely on the ActionForwards being returned in
the same order each time, so forwarding to the first one found would not be
guaranteed to work.
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
and the action wo
> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 9, 2003 3:56 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
>
>
> >
> > If Action actually does something useful, coul
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
e: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE: Addition of
> two new actions)
>
>
> I'd say it was more like a poll to get an early consensus on the best
> name for the class. Any product change would still be subject to a veto
> before the next release.
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
&g
x27;s defined for it.
I believe SuccessAction fills a current gap but is probably a temporary
solution until we have a more unified/flexible forward declaration syntax.
How "temporary" it is depends on how motivated we are to change it :-).
David
>
> Steve
>
>
> >
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 5, 2003 6:52 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
>
>
> --- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is not a general purpose action.
>
> IMO, limited
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
t play ball.
>
>I haven't touched Action...yet ;-)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addit
gt; Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
>
>
> In an ideal world, DispatchAction should probably become
> ParameterDispatchAction and this could be plain old DispatchAction.
>
> Is Anthony's original suggestion of ConfigDispatchAction any better?
>
> I can't think of
t play ball.
>
>I haven't touched Action...yet ;-)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addit
> I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
> and the action would always forward to that forward? In that case,
> you could count on using the first one.
Just thinking that if an anonymous/default ActionForward were allowed, then
it could also be useful for other actions
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
t play ball.
>
>I haven't touched Action...yet ;-)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addit
t play ball.
>
>I haven't touched Action...yet ;-)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addit
rom: Peter A. Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 9, 2003 3:13 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE: Addition of
> two new actions)
>
>
> Steve Raeburn wrote:
> > I *think* we agreed to add this action.
t play ball.
>
>I haven't touched Action...yet ;-)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addit
Maverick directly supports the idea that a command may have only one
destrintation, and then streamlines its behavior. So we have some
precedent under the "great minds" theory =:0)
ActionMapping.findForwards only brings back local forwards. So the
"DefaultAction" could just forward to the firs
EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Cooper
> Sent: August 4, 2003 3:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
>
>
>
> "Steve Raeburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > You're right is mo
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
; From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
>
>
> > I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
> > and the action wou
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
tx
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
>> Additi
At 16:51 -0700 8/8/03, David Graham wrote:
I'd like to get your thoughts (and others) on my proposal at the beginning
of this message. In short, we wouldn't use the parameter attribute nor
would we define "success" as the only correct forward name. SuccessAction
would forward to the first that's
PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 8, 2003 4:51 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
>
>
> --- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, I'm back. Now where were we...
> >
> > What
ly general so I chose Mapping.
David
>
> Steve
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 4, 2003 1:25 PM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
> >
that
forward be arbitrarily named "success"?
David
>
> Steve
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 4, 2003 3:06 PM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Addition of two new act
diom and I think this would just
reflect what many people are already doing and make it just a little bit
easier.
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 4, 2003 3:06 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: Ad
s configuration is consistent with almost all other
> actions.
>
> Steve
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 4, 2003 7:03 AM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
&
rename of SuccessAction to something more suitable (maybe
ForwardingAction?).
David
>
> Steve
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 4, 2003 1:32 PM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: R
TED]
> Sent: August 4, 2003 1:32 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
>
>
> --- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're right is module relative (despite what it
> > says in
> > the Javadoc). Howev
.
David
>
> Steve
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 4, 2003 7:03 AM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the link. I&
> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Cooper
> Sent: August 4, 2003 10:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
>
> I'm +1 on this, other than on naming. I think ParameterDispatchAction is
> def
th almost all other
actions.
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 4, 2003 7:03 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
>
>
> Thanks for the link. I'll respond to that me
At 10:16 -0700 8/4/03, Martin Cooper wrote:
That sounds rather dangerous to me, unless you have some additional control
over which JSP pages can be accessed in this way. From your description, it
sounds like this gives the client blanket access to all the JSP pages in
your app, which I certainly wo
"Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 19:29 -0400 8/3/03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> >Having a SuccessAction makes it much easier to do
> >skeleton/storyboarded sites and fill in the details later.
> >Switching from a SuccessAction to a real action when the tim
k' :-)
>
> Steve
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM
> > To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
> >
>
d yet another Action class when we could just improve upon the
existing options.
David
> Steve
--- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 3, 2003 3:02 PM
> > To: Strut
At 3:56 -0400 8/4/03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
The only issue that it would have for me though, is we use different
naming conventions for action mappings than we do for JSP pages, so
it would require we either change our conventions or just rename
JSP's when we inject a real action in the middle at
On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 10:05 PM, Joe Germuska wrote:
If you register "SmartForwardingAction" as your "unknown" (default)
action, it will take what would have been the action path, append
".jsp", and forward to that JSP. So if someone requests
"/HelloWorld.do", the action looks for "/He
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, David Graham wrote:
> Not everyone uses the terms "success" and "failure" in their apps and
> hardcoding these into Struts is *not* a good idea. It's an extremely
> small wheel to reinvent public static final String SUCCESS = "blah"; :-).
It is a small wheel to reinvent, bu
At 19:29 -0400 8/3/03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Having a SuccessAction makes it much easier to do
skeleton/storyboarded sites and fill in the details later.
Switching from a SuccessAction to a real action when the time is
right requires only changing the class name, not the structure of
the action m
u still want to use a constant then I don't want to get hung up on it,
but I think it is *marginally* better not to in this unusual case.
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 3, 2003 2:07 PM
> To: Struts Developers
> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 3, 2003 3:02 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
...
> I still don't see a need for a SuccessAction in the first place. Why is
>
On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 06:02 PM, David Graham wrote:
Not everyone uses the terms "success" and "failure" in their apps and
hardcoding these into Struts is *not* a good idea. It's an extremely
small wheel to reinvent public static final String SUCCESS = "blah";
:-).
Well, WebWork(2) define
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Raeburn wrote:
> > SuccessAction does already exist in Scaffold. That version is slightly
> > different as it uses the Tokens constants class. I don't really see
> what
> > that would buy us, as the user would still need to know what name to
> enter
Steve Raeburn wrote:
SuccessAction does already exist in Scaffold. That version is slightly
different as it uses the Tokens constants class. I don't really see what
that would buy us, as the user would still need to know what name to enter
for the ActionForward. I wouldn't want to tie a core Action
Steve Raeburn said:
> I would prefer going with simpler, specialised classes than a monolithic
> DispatchAction but if there is a consensus to combine them then I accept
> your point.
>
> A combined action may perhaps offer more flexibility. A concrete subclass
> might be able to resolve the method
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I would prefer going with simpler, specialised classes than a monolithic
DispatchAction
+1, I am infavor of the simpler classes. They are easier to understand,
maintain and modify.
but if there is a consensus to combine them then I accept
your point.
A combined action may p
raham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 1, 2003 1:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
I would prefer to add ParameterDispatchAction now and defer a decision
about
merging the three actions.
To me, that would be 'the simplest thing that could possibly w
d Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 1, 2003 1:38 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
>
>
> > I would prefer to add ParameterDispatchAction now and defer a decision
> > about
> > merging the three actions.
> &
10:42 AM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
developer to create the map-related methods? I think you already get
the
abililty to combine CRUD related actions and things like t
it if we took a look at all 3 classes now and
decided on an implementation before committing anything new.
David
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Additi
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM
> > To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
> >
> >
> > So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
> > developer to c
ginal Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM
> To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
>
>
> So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
> developer
--- Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Graham wrote:
>
> >>>I have a few concerns with this. First, it's more work to maintain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>this
> >>
> >>
> >>>new optional package with build files, tests, distribution, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Second,
> >>
> >>
> >
David Graham wrote:
I have a few concerns with this. First, it's more work to maintain
this
new optional package with build files, tests, distribution, etc.
Second,
it's likely that the unused code would decay because Struts isn't using
it.
Since we don't curren
> >I have a few concerns with this. First, it's more work to maintain
> this
> >new optional package with build files, tests, distribution, etc.
> Second,
> >it's likely that the unused code would decay because Struts isn't using
> >it.
> >
> Since we don't currently have a struts-contrib or st
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Steve Raeburn wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:01:35 -0700
> From: Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj
David Graham wrote:
--- Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Graham wrote:
--- Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increas
--- Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Graham wrote:
>
> >--- Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ted Husted wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
>
> >>>*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the n
David Graham wrote:
--- Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes St
r than try to shoehorn several different resolution methods into a
single class.
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 1, 2003 9:01 AM
> To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addition of two n
ot explaining myself more fully in the
first place.
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Cooper
> Sent: August 1, 2003 8:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
>
>
>
> "Steve Ra
--- Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
>
> > I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
> > *custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
>
> > Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes Struts more
> > ac
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes Struts more
accessible to newcomers, saves everyone from reimplementing the sa
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Steve Raeburn wrote:
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:10:59 -0700
> From: Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
"Steve Raeburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
> particularly useful.
>
> 1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an
ActionFoward
> named "success".
This already exists, in
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 10:21, David Graham wrote:
> --- Benjamin Tomasini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To the end of making it accessible to newcomers, what about making a
> > "samples" directory for actions? Maybe even forms?
>
> That type of thing doesn't belong in the Struts core code, it bel
--- Benjamin Tomasini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the end of making it accessible to newcomers, what about making a
> "samples" directory for actions? Maybe even forms?
That type of thing doesn't belong in the Struts core code, it belongs in
the sample applications.
David
>
> On Fri, 2003-
To the end of making it accessible to newcomers, what about making a
"samples" directory for actions? Maybe even forms?
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 06:19, Ted Husted wrote:
> I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
> *custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the num
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 04:13, Vic Cekvenich wrote:
> I think less actions are needed, not more.
> .V
>
> Steve Raeburn wrote:
> > I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
> > particularly useful.
> >
> > 1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an
--- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
> particularly useful.
>
> 1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an
> ActionFoward
> named "success".
>
> This is a very simple action, but I find it excep
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes Struts more
accessible to newcomers, saves everyone from reimplementing the same
design, and lev
I think less actions are needed, not more.
.V
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
particularly useful.
1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an ActionFoward
named "success".
This is a very simple action, but I find it e
I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
particularly useful.
1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an ActionFoward
named "success".
This is a very simple action, but I find it exceptionally useful,
particularly in the early stages of developm
82 matches
Mail list logo
