On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:22:48 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
As I've been saying (a lot, it seems, lately) on struts-user, I
think there are legitimate Struts JSP tags like html:messages
that are not best replaced by JSTL. Any time Struts tools put
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:22:48 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
As I've been saying (a lot, it seems, lately) on struts-user, I
think there are legitimate Struts JSP tags like html:messages
that are not best replaced by JSTL. Any time Struts tools put
resources in special locations in request or
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:22:48 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
As I've been saying (a lot, it seems, lately) on struts-user, I
think there are legitimate Struts JSP tags like html:messages
that are not best replaced by JSTL. Any time Struts tools put
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Quoting Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Joe Germuska wrote:
Whether the classic and el taglibs are one chunk or two isn't
hugely important to me either -- I would prefer that this decision be
made by developers who've done more work on that code to date.
...
logic:match no equalivant in JSTL 1.0 but exists String functions in
JSTL 1.1
...
logic:match equivalent is c:if test=${foo.bar eq 'hello world'}xxx/c:if
-Tim
Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Quoting Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Joe Germuska wrote:
Whether
--- Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
bean:size we need a simple tag lib action for JSP 1.2 and JSTL 1.0 to
get
the size of java.uitl.Collection until there is widespread
support JSP 2.0 JSTL 1.1
The current proposal is for Struts 2.0 to be based on Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0
so we
Nope. logic:match does substring matching.
Quoting Tim Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
logic:match no equalivant in JSTL 1.0 but exists String functions in
JSTL 1.1
...
logic:match equivalent is c:if test=${foo.bar eq 'hello world'}xxx/c:if
-Tim
Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
Craig R.
You're right (as usual ;))
I was using the String taglib in addition to the JSTL 1.0 taglib to do
the test. (duh)
Although looking at it now.. there isnt any support for begin and ends
in that neither.
-Tim
Kris Schneider wrote:
Nope. logic:match does substring matching.
Quoting Tim Chen
With JSTL 1.1 (JSP 2.0), you get a set of string manipulaton functions (which
Peter was referring to) that includes:
fn:contains(string, substring)
fn:startsWith(string, prefix)
fn:endsWith(string, suffix)
In addition, you also get a length function that operates on collections and
strings:
--- Kris Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. logic:match does substring matching.
IMO, any tag that does not interact with Struts' core resources should
live in the Jakarta Taglibs project. This allows non-Struts projects to
benefit from the functionality while freeing Struts to focus on
+1. Just keeping the functionality facts straight...
Quoting David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- Kris Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. logic:match does substring matching.
IMO, any tag that does not interact with Struts' core resources should
live in the Jakarta Taglibs project.
Quoting Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Quoting Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Joe Germuska wrote:
Whether the classic and el taglibs are one chunk or two isn't
hugely important to me either -- I would prefer that this decision be
made by
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:52:03 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
So, there are pros and cons both ways, of course. Now we just need
to make a decision and move on it. ;-
If all the deliverables are in a single module, is there a way that we can generate a
separate changelog for each one?
At 6:30 AM -0800 3/25/04, David Graham wrote:
Yep, notice I mentioned removing many tags and not *all* tags :-).
There are certainly tags we should keep around but I just don't see a need
for most of the logic and bean tags in Struts 2.0.
Whoops. I read
Is there any reason that the EL tags
At 7:44 AM -0500 3/25/04, Ted Husted wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:52:03 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
So, there are pros and cons both ways, of course. Now we just need
to make a decision and move on it. ;-
If all the deliverables are in a single module, is there a way that
we can generate
Joe Germuska wrote:
Whether the classic and el taglibs are one chunk or two isn't
hugely important to me either -- I would prefer that this decision be
made by developers who've done more work on that code to date.
However, I did find that when I patched
o.a.s.t.html.JavascriptValidator, I
Quoting Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Joe Germuska wrote:
Whether the classic and el taglibs are one chunk or two isn't
hugely important to me either -- I would prefer that this decision be
made by developers who've done more work on that code to date.
However, I did find
--- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether the classic and el taglibs are one chunk or two isn't
hugely important to me either -- I would prefer that this decision
be
made by developers who've done more work on that code to date.
However, I did find that when I patched
--- Arron Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether the classic and el taglibs are one chunk or two
isn't
hugely important to me either -- I would prefer that this
decision
be
made by developers who've done more work on that code to
--- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Hope that helps. If we stick to our guns about avoiding dependencies
on unreleased software, this won't come up again... it's not Maven's
fault!
Commons Validator is a special case because it's mostly used with Struts.
The standalone user
On Mar 24, 2004, at 4:19 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
Next question. In making changes like this, at what point do we start
breaking the CVS history? I'd definitely want to keep it all for core
and taglibs. The other components might be less important.
** Last but not least: What else do we need to
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:45:29 -0700, Matt Raible wrote:
** Last but not least: What else do we need to do for 1.2.1 ? --
Just the three problem tickets on the bugzilla list now?
Personally, I'd like to see a 1.2 release before any CVS changes
are made. I think the user community would
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personally, I'd like to see a 1.2 release before any CVS
changes are
made. I think the user community would agree.
Well, did-ja have anything to add to the list, Matt? :)
Nope - release, release!!
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:52:03 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
So, there are pros and cons both ways, of course. Now we just need
to make a decision and move on it. ;-)
The consensus seems to be to use a single module with top-level-directories
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:03:58 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
\opt-dev (whiteboard or sandbox)
So 'dev', 'whiteboard' or 'sandbox'? ;-) I don't have a strong
preference, although 'sandbox' is used by at least 4 Jakarta sub-
projects. (In those, it's a separate repo, though. Do we want to
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:35:41 +, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
Are keeping the basic `src' and `web' main sub directory under each
top level directory?
I'd prefer we followed the Maven project layout recommendations for each deliverable.
This will be the easiest for everyone to grok in the
--- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes it easy for the apps to extend a common Maven
project.xml. We could still offer a single zip/tarball with all the
applications WARs within.
/apps
- examples
- mailreader
- tilesPortal
- userdb
Now that I say it, the same
Martin Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Quoting Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:36:37 -0700, Matt Raible wrote:
While it's great to break out things into separate modules - I'd
love to be able to get
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:07:55 +, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
In my experienc multiple CVS repositories can make a project much
harder to manage. But are we singing from the same hymn sheet? Is a
multiple repository equal ( or not equal) to a CVS module?
We mean multiple CVS modules. The
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:49:31 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
On the multi-repository projects I've worked on, we had a special
repository just for integration tasks like this.
So we'd need yet another repo - say struts-integration - just for
this. Why is that better than just doing what we
Ted Husted wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:49:31 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
Well, as you mentioned, another way to go would be for some one to write a tool that could burst and rejar an arbitrary set of jars. (If one doesn't already exist.) The source for such a tool could live in the
Ted Husted wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:07:55 +, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
In my experienc multiple CVS repositories can make a project much
harder to manage. But are we singing from the same hymn sheet? Is a
multiple repository equal ( or not equal) to a CVS module?
We mean multiple CVS
Message-
From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 22, 2004 11:50 PM
To: Craig R. McClanahan
Cc: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Making Struts Build Easier (Re: coming out for JSF +
Struts, was: Struts JSR?)
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Quoting
Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:07:55 +, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
In my experienc multiple CVS repositories can make a project much
harder to manage. But are we singing from the same hymn sheet? Is a
multiple repository equal ( or not equal) to a CVS module?
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:16:53 +, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
1) I think you should keep the same elementary structure
Moving forward, we have already decided to use Maven as our build environment, which
addresses a number of consistency and structural issues. We had also decided to
distribute
At 3:47 PM -0500 3/23/04, Ted Husted wrote:
At this point, we're down to whether to organize the subprojects
(units of release) into multiple modules or around
top-level-directories in a single module.
My only feeling is that should we start inviting some of the popular
extensions to join us,
Joe Germuska wrote:
At 3:47 PM -0500 3/23/04, Ted Husted wrote:
At this point, we're down to whether to organize the subprojects
(units of release) into multiple modules or around
top-level-directories in a single module.
My only feeling is that should we start inviting some of the popular
I just to try build Struts with Maven, what am I doing wrong?
...
Attempting to download commons-validator-1.1.2-dev.jar.
WARNING: Failed to download commons-validator-1.1.2-dev.jar.
The build cannot continue because of the following unsatisfied dependency:
The problem is that the project.xml file
Joe Germuska wrote:
I just to try build Struts with Maven, what am I doing wrong?
...
Attempting to download commons-validator-1.1.2-dev.jar.
WARNING: Failed to download commons-validator-1.1.2-dev.jar.
The build cannot continue because of the following unsatisfied
dependency:
The problem is
Joe Germuska wrote:
I just to try build Struts with Maven, what am I doing wrong?
...
Attempting to download commons-validator-1.1.2-dev.jar.
WARNING: Failed to download commons-validator-1.1.2-dev.jar.
The build cannot continue because of the following unsatisfied
dependency:
I cannot seem to
java:jar-resources:
Copying 16 files to /new/peterp/jakarta-struts/m-target/classes
[style] Transforming into
/new/peterp/jakarta-struts/m-target/classes/META-INF/tlds
[style] Processing
/new/peterp/jakarta-struts/doc/userGuide/struts-bean.xml to
Joe Germuska wrote:
java:jar-resources:
Copying 16 files to /new/peterp/jakarta-struts/m-target/classes
====
[style]
new/peterp/jakarta-struts/doc/userGuide/struts-html.xml:1440:2: Fatal
Error! The content of elements must consist of well-formed character
data or markup.
[style]
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:16:53 +, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
1) I think you should keep the same elementary structure
Moving forward, we have already decided to use Maven as our build environment, which
addresses a number of consistency and structural
For me, the main discouraging thing about contributing to the
development of Struts has been the build process. In the past, you
had to download all of jakarta-commons and spend a day or two
figuring out how to get that to build. Recently, I tried to build
Struts and was successful using the
are offline.
Hermod
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. mars 2004 15:28
Til: Struts Developers List
Emne: Making Struts Build Easier (Re: coming out for JSF + Struts,
was: Struts JSR?)
For me, the main discouraging thing about contributing
On Mar 22, 2004, at 7:28 AM, Joe Germuska wrote:
For me, the main discouraging thing about contributing to the
development of Struts has been the build process. In the past, you
had to download all of jakarta-commons and spend a day or two
figuring out how to get that to build. Recently, I
Personally, I find the Struts build files to be complex and confusing.
I've come to associate Maven with easy builds because building commons
components (including the distro, website, tests, etc) is a snap compared
to Struts. I agree that storing jars in cvs isn't a good idea which is
why using
I agree 100% with Matt and make the same prognostication.
At 06:46 AM 3/22/2004, you wrote:
On Mar 22, 2004, at 7:28 AM, Joe Germuska wrote:
For me, the main discouraging thing about contributing to the
development of Struts has been the build process. In the past, you had
to download all of
I have a somewhat nutty suggestion. I suggest that we have someone who
is an administrative genius with a flair for teaching and simple
statement be an available guide to assist new people in getting the proper
builds to work on struts. Such a person would, I predict, be worth 100
times
no good answers for this, just passing on my $.02...
Edgar
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:47 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Making Struts Build Easier (Re: coming out for JSF +
Struts, was: Struts JSR
David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I find the Struts build files to be complex and confusing.
Two weeks ago, I tried to build the struts 1.1 source package against
commons-collections-3.0.jar in order to run the unit tests and insure struts
still worked properly. After several
Quoting David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Personally, I find the Struts build files to be complex and confusing.
I've come to associate Maven with easy builds because building commons
components (including the distro, website, tests, etc) is a snap compared
to Struts. I agree that storing
At 11:52 AM -0500 3/22/04, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
Two weeks ago, I tried to build the struts 1.1 source package against
commons-collections-3.0.jar in order to run the unit tests and insure struts
still worked properly. After several hours of trying to set it up and make
...
Like those who
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:53:02 -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Yep ... that's why we need to finish the how many repositories
discussion so we can start migrating towards something that is
simpler.
I continue to think that the easiest thing in the long run will be a module for each
product.
On Mar 22, 2004, at 11:28 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:53:02 -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Yep ... that's why we need to finish the how many repositories
discussion so we can start migrating towards something that is
simpler.
I continue to think that the easiest thing in the
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:36:37 -0700, Matt Raible wrote:
While it's great to break out things into separate modules - I'd
love to be able to get struts.jar w/ everything in it - including
EL and tags. I can live with all the commons-* JARs (even if it is
annoying), but in general - the less
From: Matt Raible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't care how things are partitioned in CVS, as long as everything
builds with one checkout and one command.
Along those lines, I'd like to suggest that a complete WAR and/or EAR of
examples be included as one command to checkout. I'd even be
' and have everything happen.)
--
Martin Cooper
Hermod
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. mars 2004 15:28
Til: Struts Developers List
Emne: Making Struts Build Easier (Re: coming out for JSF + Struts,
was: Struts JSR?)
For me, the main
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:36:37 -0700, Matt Raible wrote:
While it's great to break out things into separate modules - I'd
love to be able to get struts.jar w/ everything in it - including
EL and tags. I can live with all the commons-* JARs (even if it
Quoting Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:36:37 -0700, Matt Raible wrote:
While it's great to break out things into separate modules - I'd
love to be able to get struts.jar w/ everything in it - including
EL and tags. I
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Quoting Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:36:37 -0700, Matt Raible wrote:
While it's great to break out things into separate modules - I'd
love to be able to get
61 matches
Mail list logo
