+1 on rename and deprecation.
David
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Modules vs. Sub-Applications
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Rob Leland wrote:
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:27:11 -0500
> From: Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Modules vs. Sub-Appl
Ted Husted wrote:
As these methods are really not part of the public API, could
we not just change them now and be done with it?
Some are Public, however I would also vote
+1 to rename them now.
I agree with David and say lets go one intermediate
step and deprecate them
for struts 1.1B3 but
+1
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As these methods are really not part of the public
> API, could
> we not just change them now and be done with it?
>
> -Ted.
>
> 10/28/2002 1:21:40 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PRO
As these methods are really not part of the public API, could
we not just change them now and be done with it?
-Ted.
10/28/2002 1:21:40 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought it was application module, therefore
h like the
commons-workflow package, but customized for web apps.
PTS
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Modules vs. Su
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, David Graham wrote:
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:28:48 -0700
> From: David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Modules vs. Sub-Applications
>
> I was sugg
anahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Modules vs. Sub-Applications
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:11:17 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, David Graham wrote:
>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, David Graham wrote:
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:36 -0700
> From: David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Modules vs. Sub-Applications
>
> Would it mak
Would it make sense to keep the current names but deprecate and replace them
in a future version (maybe 2.0)?
David
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I thought it was application module, therefore the
> current names are still consistent with that.
That's certainly my excuse for thinking we should not change them now :-).
Although I agree with David that ModuleConfig and selectModule() would
h
I thought it was application module, therefore the
current names are still consistent with that. Did I miss
some threads :(
Wait, stop the printer...
chuck
> Going back to the discussion on calling modules "sub-applications", I think
> it was decided to call everything a module to eliminate
Going back to the discussion on calling modules "sub-applications", I think
it was decided to call everything a module to eliminate confusion. The
naming of Struts 1.1 classes and methods is not helping this situation. For
example, we have an ApplicationConfig class and
RequestUtils.selectApp
13 matches
Mail list logo
