DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13721] New: - ActionForward redirect=true

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13720] New: - Debug

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

RE: cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util PropertyMessageResources.java

I didn’t mean inherited in the sense of the Java Language. What I meant was, all messages (for every locale ever requested) are stored in (HashMap) messages. (I believe for performance reasons) In the case where you have an ApplicationResources.properties file (default) and a smaller one called

Re: cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util PropertyMessageResources.java

James Mitchell wrote: > Hi Rob, I don’t think those lines were doing what you thought. Without > them, there is no support for inherited messages. Since doIt was a local variable I don't see how that impacts inherited messages. When the code below the while loop is executed doIt is always true,

RE: cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util PropertyMessageResources.java

Hi Rob, I don’t think those lines were doing what you thought. Without them, there is no support for inherited messages. James Mitchell Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist http://www.open-tools.org > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wed

RE: template status

Thanks for the info Martin. I wanted to make sure I was pointing people in the right direction. This came up on the user list today and I recommended using Tiles. I agree with deprecating the template library, that's part of the reason I asked :-). It's confusing when there are 2 libraries

RE: template status

Tiles is indeed more developed. The template library was a relatively early contribution to Struts. Since it stabilised, it has undergone little change. In the meantime, Tiles came along as an add-on to Struts, providing backwards compatibility with the template library, but also offering signifi

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/validator ValidatorPlugIn.java

rleland 2002/10/16 20:32:30 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/validator ValidatorPlugIn.java Log: Localize variable declaration Revision ChangesPath 1.9 +5 -5 jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/validator/ValidatorPlugIn.java Index: ValidatorPl

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util MessageResources.java MessageResourcesFactory.java

rleland 2002/10/16 20:20:31 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/util MessageResources.java MessageResourcesFactory.java Log: Update missing JavaDocs Revision ChangesPath 1.15 +25 -6 jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util/Messag

template status

What's the deal with the struts template library? I haven't used it but it seems to have many features that Tiles has. Tiles seems more developed however. Are there any plans for template? Dave _ Broadband? Dial-up? Get rel

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util PropertyMessageResources.java

rleland 2002/10/16 19:56:58 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/util PropertyMessageResources.java Log: Removed 2 if statements where condition was always true, and cleanup JavaDoc Revision ChangesPath 1.6 +7 -8 jakarta-struts/src/s

RE: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:22:42 -0700 > From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps > > One other

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util RequestUtils.java

rleland 2002/10/16 19:41:59 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/util RequestUtils.java Log: Cleanup JavDoc Revision ChangesPath 1.63 +31 -17 jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/util/RequestUtils.java Index: RequestUtils.java ==

Re: Does anyone successfully run the StrutsTestCase example?

Yes - I've run it. I think it's great. I've run both the Cactus and the JUnit (Mock) tests. The book I have coming out (Struts Kick Start) has a chapter dedicated to building and testing Struts apps that gives detailed examples on how to configure use StrutsTestCase. Kevin "Trieu, Danny"

RE: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

> -Original Message- > From: Peter A. J. Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6:35 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps > > > Martin Cooper wrote: > > I think it's about time we all got on the same page as

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13716] - ted requested the build-tests.xml to be modified to add Tomcat 3.3.1 testing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13716] - ted requested the build-tests.xml to be modified to add Tomcat 3.3.1 testing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13716] New: - ted requested the build-tests.xml to be modified to add Tomcat 3.3.1 testing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

Does anyone successfully run the StrutsTestCase example?

If so do you recommended using this to test Struts apps? danny

Re: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

Martin Cooper wrote: > I think it's about time we all got on the same page as regards whether these > thingies are called modules or sub-apps. I believe we decided on modules a > while ago, but many of us are still referring to sub-apps. The User Guide at > this point has a mixture of both. > > I

RE: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

Nothing a simple global search & replace couldn't handle, right? I understand your point. However, this notation hasn't been in use for very long, and won't be *that* distruptive if it's changed (or even less so if it's just noted in passing somewhere, although personally I'd prefer to do the ri

RE: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

One other point I neglected to mention, which may actually make the question moot at this point: We use $M to denote the current module in forward URLs. If we choose the term sub-apps, we'd have to explain why we use $M as the abbreviation... -- Martin Cooper > -Original Message- > Fro

Re: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

Agree. I like sub-apps too. .V Byrne, Steven wrote: > I think it would be best if we reserved the term "modules" for the > future; in almost all respects, the Struts apps that are referenced by > some path off the context root are really little web applications > themselves, hence the term "sub

RE: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

I think it would be best if we reserved the term "modules" for the future; in almost all respects, the Struts apps that are referenced by some path off the context root are really little web applications themselves, hence the term "sub apps" [I don't care if it has a hyphen or not] is more descrip

Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

I think it's about time we all got on the same page as regards whether these thingies are called modules or sub-apps. I believe we decided on modules a while ago, but many of us are still referring to sub-apps. The User Guide at this point has a mixture of both. It's going to be confusing to peop

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12732] - [PATCH] Making CommonsMultipartRequestHandler aware of character encoding in request

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/upload CommonsMultipartRequestHandler.java

jholmes 2002/10/16 17:49:25 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/upload CommonsMultipartRequestHandler.java Log: make addTextParameter() aware of character encoding in request PR: Bugzilla #12732 Revision ChangesPath 1.3 +11 -5 jak

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > > > Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but > in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of > struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app module > (consi

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13701] - newline swallowed bei MultipartElement or MultipartIterator

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

What are people's feelings about supporting Servlet 2.2 in post 1.1? Is it time that we can say in 1.2 and beyond that servlet 2.3 is required? I was thinking about the roadmap, and realizing that while a Struts version that was JSF aware was probably a ways off, a version with JSTL incorporated

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ted Husted wrote: > Using the same element name more than once is really only the tip of the iceberg. We >can also delete or rename a > form bean from the file and Struts will not catch the problem until runtime. Not in my system! :) XDoclet to the rescue. Form bean definitions are generat

Re: Validator 1.0 Release and bug 10868

At 07:31 PM 10/16/2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > One bug under Struts that should really be addressed in the base code is > > the question of specifying alternate resource bundles forms and fields (bug > > #10868). As I understand it, this will cause problems for Validator with > > sub-apps

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Nope, I was just in a time warp. EOT. > -Original Message- > From: David Derry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 4:49 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored? > > > Having a tough week David? > > - Original

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:32:21 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 c

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I agree that at this point pulling the Validator and Tiles from the core distribution would be more trouble than keeping them in, but it's important to note that both components have been around since the Struts 0.5 era, and I was using them in production with a late beta of Struts 1.0 years a

Re: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Having a tough week David? - Original Message - From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Oh. Sheesh, it's not even Thursday. > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > You sure about that? ;) > > > > > > > > > > > -Ori

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 6:51:23 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That's one possibility, but it leaves the door wide open for people to shoot >> themselves in the foot. >> >> Consider a situation with two config files, a.xml and b.xml. Now, a.xml >> contains an action, actionA, that spec

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I haven't used dyna beans or modules but that doesn't make them not part of the core struts features. Also, just because some future technology may make a struts feature obsolete, does not reduce its importance. I stand by the belief that without tiles and validator (or any other core feature

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

At 2:26 PM -0600 2002/10/16, David Graham wrote: >To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without them, >struts loses much of its utility and importance. I think that's a bit extreme. Action classes are part of the core; RequestProcessor is part of the core. I've built several Strut

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:51 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 20

Re: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Daniel Honig wrote: >Back to the issue at hand, though: > > Why can't tiles have a global configuration that can be overidden locally? > >Is this feasible? > Yes. >Other environments offer such functionality. > We won't til post 1.1F. Not unless someone contributes it. There are plenty of out

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:43:44 -0700 > From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > >

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

I want to stay on this list but the volume of emails is getting a bit high and I have work to do. I would appreciate it if emails that aren't adding information to a thread were taken off list. It's nice to monitor the list to keep tabs on what's going on but the quality of the traffic has decline

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/validator DynaValidatorActionForm.java DynaValidatorForm.java ValidatorActionForm.java ValidatorForm.java ValidatorPlugIn.java

rleland 2002/10/16 15:41:43 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/validator DynaValidatorActionForm.java DynaValidatorForm.java ValidatorActionForm.java ValidatorForm.java ValidatorPlugIn.java Log: Cleanup JavaDo

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Back to the issue at hand, though: Why can't tiles have a global configuration that can be overidden locally? Is this feasible? Other environments offer such functionality. -Daniel -Original Message- From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Ya, sorryI couldn’t resist. James Mitchell Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist http://www.open-tools.org > -Original Message- > From: Karr, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6:24 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: [VOTE] How should

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Oh. Sheesh, it's not even Thursday. > -Original Message- > From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:22 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored? > > > You sure about that? ;) > > James Mitchell >

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Martin Cooper wrote: >>-Original Message- >>From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:20 PM >>To: Struts Developers List >>Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability >> >> >>10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13239] - Validator Not accepting yyyy/MM

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

You sure about that? ;) James Mitchell Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist http://www.open-tools.org > -Original Message- > From: Karr, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6:18 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles b

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Could we have a ruling on this, please? As far as I can tell, it's still Thursday, in all parts of the world. ;) > -Original Message- > From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:14 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: [VOTE] How shou

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13239] - Validator Not accepting yyyy/MM

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Well, I know I'm not a committer and all , but for what its worth... [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration for each module. No future change is required IMHO. [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration for each module.

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:20 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > 10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Do we need a propos

Re: Bugzilla Bug 13239

Add it as an attachment to that bug, please. We'll get to it as soon as possible and get it applied. If you put it in Bugzilla, it can't be lost. Thanks :-) Daniel Honig wrote: >I have prepared a patch to validator-rules.xml to fix Bug 13239 > > > >I'm going to do the CVS diff -u thing. Tha

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Craig R. McClanahan wrote: >It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission :-) > I'm learning that - albeit slowly! >Craig > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 5:22:13 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but >>in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of >>struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Thanks for your clearification. I think that would be a good solution. I wasn't seeing the trees for the forest :-( Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I think it's reasonable we would fix things to be independent now, as >>Martin and Craig hav

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

+1 - sounds like a very good solution. Craig R. McClanahan wrote: >On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > >>From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>If Steve, or anyone else, would like to start putting together a roadmap for Struts >1.1, 1.2, and 1.2+ (formerly >>1.1+), I'll be happy to pos

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:22 PM > To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > > > Date

Bugzilla Bug 13239

I have prepared a patch to validator-rules.xml to fix Bug 13239 Roughyly: Hi , I am trying out the possiblities of Struts for our project, and i found the following issue I am having a date pattern (/MM) in one of my forms and in validation.xml ***

Re: Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1compatability)

+1 - yep. I know folks would find that handy. contrib/sf is good. Ted Husted wrote: >+1 > >Choice is good, and this sounds like something we could offer through the Contrib >folder or on Struts >Sourceforge. > >10/16/2002 5:00:58 PM, "Byrne, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I developed

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Byrne, Steven wrote: >Definitely a big part of what 1.1 is all about is integrating Tiles and >Validator into the main Struts distribution. Pulling them back into >pseudo-contrib status would not be a good thing. > Yeah -- I'm -1 taking them out of core too. >Has anyone estimated the level o

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:13 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > 10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I think it's reasona

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12470] - Cancel does not work correctly when using dynamic validation

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:29:35 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compa

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:53:48 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 c

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 5:22:13 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but >in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of >struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app module >(consistent with

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13239] - Validator Not accepting yyyy/MM

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:13:19 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compa

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

If Steve, or anyone else, would like to start putting together a roadmap for Struts 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2+ (formerly 1.1+), I'll be happy to post it on the site and maintain it. It doesn't have too be XML, I can take it off the list if that's what it takes. -T. 10/16/2002 4:47:29 PM, "Byrne, St

Re: Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

+1 Choice is good, and this sounds like something we could offer through the Contrib folder or on Struts Sourceforge. 10/16/2002 5:00:58 PM, "Byrne, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I developed a system that handles the need for having multiple >components of a Struts application (Struts,

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 11950] - Missing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think it's reasonable we would fix things to be independent now, as >Martin and Craig have suggested, and then look at making modules >cooperate next. I'm not talking about anyting to do with modules cooperating or not. I'm just s

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 11950] - Missing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

JSF is still a moving target, isn't it? Assuming we get the current outstanding issues cleared and cut 1.1F in a reasonable time-frame (tbd), I really don't think it would take long to implement the additional changes required to make modules communicate. It's really an insignificant change

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I think I like your intent, but I fail to see how this would accomplish it. Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Do we need a proposal maybe? >> > >As a rule, we propose through code, since that's all we can really vote on anyway =:0) > >My only poi

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, "V. Cekvenich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? >> >All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a list of struts-config >files, as we do for the >validator and tiles configs. This way people could split up the confi

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Just of the box... Ted, others, what if we just delayed subapps till after? .V Byrne, Steven wrote: > Definitely a big part of what 1.1 is all about is integrating Tiles and > Validator into the main Struts distribution. Pulling them back into > pseudo-contrib status would not be a good thing.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 11950] - Missing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

I developed a system that handles the need for having multiple components of a Struts application (Struts, Tiles, Validator, etc) partitioned in a modular fashion, so that independent groups could work on their component parts without having to worry about what other groups were doing, and yet all

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 11950] - Missing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/taglib/html JavascriptValidatorTag.java

rleland 2002/10/16 13:55:07 Modified:src/share/org/apache/struts/taglib/html JavascriptValidatorTag.java Log: Good catch Bug #11950. patch suggested by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Balakrishna Shetty) I also had to supply a closing ! Tested under TC 4.0.6

RE: UML Modeler [Was: RE:Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability]

Good one. I think that the only thing that should ever be committed is the standard xml files and everyone has to adhere to that standard. don't want to waste cycles on this either. -Original Message- From: Robert Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 4:44

RE: UML Modeler [Was: RE:Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability]

>I've got a personal relationship with the folks behind MagicDraw. Back in July http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-general&m=102750916312690&w=3 & Subject :"Together ControlCenter for jakarta projects" There was a " fire storm" about Rational Control Center for Jakrata Developers. The

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I would think that before Ted or anyone can answer the question of whether to wait until 1.2, a clear roadmap of near term future releases, including features and functionality lists for each release, be published. Right now, saying that it's ok to wait until 1.2 is pretty much meaningless withou

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Definitely a big part of what 1.1 is all about is integrating Tiles and Validator into the main Struts distribution. Pulling them back into pseudo-contrib status would not be a good thing. Has anyone estimated the level of effort to make each of them be sub-app aware? I imagine it's non-triv

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, "V. Cekvenich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a list of struts-config files, as we do for the validator and tiles configs. This way people could split up the config files without buying into

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without them, struts loses much of its utility and importance. David >From: Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >"'[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [VOTE] David Graham as Struts Committer

Yeah, yeah ... ;-) Hey - I thought David already was a commiter before I even started raising a stink around here. I'm glad to have him join in :-) You'll have to do better than that if you're trying to offend me ;-) Martin Cooper wrote: >+1 > >(No offense, Eddie - if your vote had come up

RE: UML Modeler [Was: RE:Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability]

I've got a personal relationship with the folks behind MagicDraw. While I doubt they would sponsor the whole Jakarta project, I might be able to bend their ears to working something out on licenses. Perhaps committers?...Something like that... If the project would like me to pursue this then le

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

+1 by a non committee on M.C. vetoing new features. Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? .V Martin Cooper wrote: > >>-Original Message- >>From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:23 AM >>To: Struts Developers List >>Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

At 12:27 PM -0700 2002/10/16, Martin Cooper wrote: > > Now that we have modules in play, would anyone VETO adding >> the capability to have a delimited list of struts- >> configs (for each module) -- to match what we do with the >> tiles and validator configurations? If for no other >> reason

Re: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

See if I draw little boxes for you guys anymore! Bah - none of you use them ;-) David Graham wrote: > Independent configuration files for 1.1, possible sharing in 1.2. > > So, I guess that's number 2. > > Dave -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For ad

RE: [VOTE] David Graham as Struts Committer

+1 (No offense, Eddie - if your vote had come up now, I'da +1'd it too. :) -- Martin Cooper > -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [VOTE] David Graham as Struts Committer > > >

Re: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Independent configuration files for 1.1, possible sharing in 1.2. So, I guess that's number 2. Dave >From: Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

Re: Modules in Struts 1.1 (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

Thank God someone has started throwing their votes around. Hop on the other thread please, Craig. I'd like to have everything in one spot. Craig R. McClanahan wrote: >On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > >>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:36:34 -0700 >>From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?

All the configuration files for Struts core, Validator, and Tiles should work the same way. Tiles put and insert should support a contextRelative property, like the ActionForward. 10/16/2002 3:48:56 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There's been a lot of discussion on how 1.1 final

Re: Modules in Struts 1.1 (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:36:34 -0700 > From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Modules in Struts 1.1 (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for

cvs commit: jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/taglib/html ImageTag.java

jholmes 2002/10/16 12:51:56 Modified:doc/userGuide struts-html.xml src/share/org/apache/struts/taglib/html ImageTag.java Log: mark "align" attribute of html:image tag as deprecated PR: Bugzilla #12023 Revision ChangesPath 1.28 +3 -0 jakarta-

  1   2   >